POLL: Do you believe that Super PACs should be allowed to accept and spend unlimited amounts of money on political causes?

No, I do not. The Citizens United decision was a complete sham. Organizations are not individuals.

The threat of big money in elections guarantees more polarization of the process, and hearkens back to the days of the robber barons of the 19th century -- when buying and selling politicians was a favorite pastime of the rich and powerful.

Of course, the problem isn't simply big money, it's the absurd length of our political processes. With Primaries, Runoffs and General elections seemingly running on and on, politicians are required to raise enormous sums, and must increasingly rely on big donors and PACs to run favorable "interest ads" on their behalf.

The effect of this is to indenture the entire process to those who have the biggest war chests.

I don't want to get too long-winded, but this is the concept of "Pluralism" (i.e. "Society is the sum of its groups") run amok. Society is NOT the sum of its groups, and what strengthens groups tends to weaken the people.

Groups tend to take more extreme positions than typical voters. Hence the polarization becomes inevitable. Add to this mix, the rise of partisan media outlets, and the Internet (Home of the Crazies), and you have the fulfillment of the poet W. B. Yeats' prophesy -- "The center cannot hold -- mere anarchy has been loosed upon the world."

No I don't believe they should be allowed to spend any money. We're suppose to have a government for the people by the people. Not for the rich by the rich. Unlimited funds from the rich stacks the deck against us all.

no