Ramtin Arablui and Randa Abdelfattah

This is about silencing people with money.

And it's about this kind of censorship.

And they're not 100 percent wrong about that because a lot of campaign finance reform really is about correcting what people see as a kind of distributional problem in American politics and that wealthy have too much money.

Conservatives and progressives, though, have a different view about whether that's OK or not.

I mean, at this point, is it possible to reverse the amount of money that's being spent by super PACs in American politics?

Or is this now just a foregone conclusion of every election?

I think it'd be very hard to reverse things, given that campaign finance law is constitutionalized.

So it's not just a matter of Congress changing the laws.

What the Supreme Court really does is lock in

kind of the level of constitutional protection and limit what Congress can do.

So that's why I think people who are trying to undo Citizens United focus on a constitutional amendment because that's the way you would have to do it or have a different court decide, you know, overrule Citizens United, but that's not going to happen for a very long time.

There are some laws that can be passed to strengthen campaign finance regulation, despite the Citizens United and SpeechNow rulings.

Henrik says that many of them would be done at the local level.

In some cities, we see top donor disclaimers, like in San Francisco.

So voters can actually see who the top...

three donors are to an ad and the supreme court actually has green lighted these types of disclosures some cities have small donor public financing seattle has democracy vouchers we can also find ways to perhaps better support local journalism and local information and so it's it's to

build a better, if you will, infrastructure to uplift candidates so that they don't have to rely on these super PACs.

You cannot buy yourself to a win.

It just doesn't work that way.

Ultimately, voters are not stupid.