Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allowed unlimited political spending by corporations, wealthy individuals, and outside groups in U.S. elections.
This is turn allowed for clearly unstable, compromised, immoral persons to infiltrate our government at the highest levels.
The result was a political system where a small number of extremely wealthy donors and organizations can spend millions influencing elections, drowning out the voices of ordinary voters.
The Citizens United ruling opened the door for unlimited outside money in elections.
When a handful of donors can spend millions on ads while ordinary citizens can only cast one vote ⏤ and it is a forced vote at that⏤political power shifts toward wealth and nefarious compromised persons and their organizations.
The phrase “not coordinated with candidates” is not decorative. It’s a legal firewall. And yes — it creates space for what people call plausible deniability.
Under United States law, independent expenditures must not be coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. That means:
- No shared strategy meetings.
- No direct communication about ad plans.
- No material involvement by the campaign in the content.
On paper, that’s a bright red line; In practice, here’s where the gray creeps in — and this is structural, not conspiratorial:
Campaigns publicly post:
- messaging themes
- talking points
- strategic priorities
- b-roll footage
- policy focus areas
b-roll footage
In political campaigns, B-roll footage is video that the campaign records and releases so media outlets — and sometimes outside political groups — have visuals of the candidate to use in stories or advertisements.
Think of it as pre-packaged video of the candidate doing normal campaign activities.
What campaign B-roll usually shows:
Campaign B-roll often includes scenes like:
• The candidate greeting voters
• Walking into a factory or small business
• Speaking at a rally
• Shaking hands at a diner
• Touring farms or construction sites
• Meeting with veterans, teachers, or workers
• Smiling with supporters
• Shots of American flags, crowds, and campaign signs
These clips are filmed professionally so they look good on television or in ads.
Why campaigns release B-roll:
Campaigns release B-roll for several reasons:
1. News coverage
• TV stations need visuals to accompany stories.
• If they don’t have footage, they will use the campaign’s B-roll.
2. Message control
• Campaigns prefer reporters show flattering images rather than random or awkward footage.
3. Accessibility
• Small stations or digital outlets often don’t have a camera crew at every event.
Where B-roll gets posted:
Campaign B-roll is often posted on:
• campaign websites
• YouTube
• press pages
• media download portals
Journalists can download it for free.
Why this matters for political ads: The footage is public, outside groups like Super PACs can legally use it.
For example: A campaign posts B-roll of a candidate visiting a factory. A Super PAC might later run an ad showing those same clips while saying: “Candidate Smith is fighting for American manufacturing.” Since the footage was publicly released, they did not need to coordinate with the campaign to use it.
Plausible Deniability:
- messaging themes
- talking points
- strategic priorities
- b-roll footage
- policy focus areas
Codified Deception
Super PACs can legally consume that public information and build ads aligned with it — without ever having a private conversation.
So the system allows:
Strategic alignment without formal coordination.
That’s not illegal. That’s how the rule was written after court decisions like Citizens United reshaped campaign finance law.
Is that deception? What do you think?
Plausible deniability: The legal definition of coordination is narrow.
Plausible deniability exists because the rule is about communication, not about shared political goals.
Now here’s the important distinction and this is where nuance matters:
If there is actual evidence of coordination (emails, directives, financial routing through prohibited channels), that’s illegal and prosecutable.
But ideological alignment + public messaging + independent spending = legal. The system was built that way. This isn’t unique to one party or one issue area. It applies to:
- ProIsrael Super PACs
- Progressive Super PACs
- Conservative Super PACs
- Labor groups
- Industry groups
- Environmental groups
It’s a structural feature of post-Citizens-United politics.
If money can legally align with campaigns without direct coordination, does the coordination rule meaningfully limit influence?
That’s a serious debate among legal scholars. Some argue the firewall is functional. Others argue it’s porous in practice.
But it’s not a secret conspiracy mechanism — it’s an openly designed legal boundary…and that is how greedy, self-serving rich people stole America from the people.
