NP: Soul Coughing, El Oso

In the first example of "if I wait long enough, the Internet will answer my questions," at least two articles unpack the effect --or lack thereof -- of Super PAC money on the election. Okay, technically one article and one other guy talking about that article.

Eventually, someone may use this ineffectiveness as a reason why Citizens United isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but the points about media saturation and poor strategy seem more salient. Just because Super PACs did badly this time doesn't mean they'll always do badly. While politics and long-term memory don't seem to have a good working relationship, these political actors might learn from their mistakes and improve.

Except that one random Eastern European guy who ran his own ads. Or whoever thought putting a woman in a huge house looking at an iPad and complaining about the last four years would be in any way effective.

Okay, maybe they won't get that much better. There's also been a thread of right-leaning organizations just spending money ineffectively, which is pretty hilarious when you consider the argument they were making about being more fiscally responsible. What do you mean, literally throwing money at problems doesn't work?

Either way, I have no idea what this one experience means for the future of Citizens United. Honestly, without a fundamental shift in how money counts as speech--off the top of my head, something like "money is speech, but more money is not directly proportional to more speech," although I have no idea how that might work--I feel like disclosure and transparency is the main battleground.