In PJ Media: "...Contrary to popular belief, Citizens United did not let loose the dogs of corporate political warfare. As Committee for Justice Executive Director Curt Levey explained, this Supreme Court decision left most of the limits on political spending in place. 'The total ban on corporate contributions to candidates, political parties, and political action committees remains in place,' he explained.
'The continuing ban on corporate contributions is just one reason why the ubiquitous descriptions of Citizens United as a sea change are greatly exaggerated. You would never know that billionaires have always been permitted to spend unlimited amounts on independent campaign ads, or that corporate campaign ads masquerading as issue ads – for example, 'call candidate Smith and tell him to end his support for killing baby seals' – were already protected by the First Amendment,' Levey wrote. "In fact, a majority of states already permit unlimited corporate spending for explicit campaign ads in state races. Seven even allow unlimited corporate contributions to candidates. Yet there’s no evidence of greater corruption in those states.'
Of course, this Supreme Court decision did have some impact on elections, but not when it comes to entrenching the powerful. Quite the reverse..."