Your commentary on unions seems to be largely on-point and relevant to this thread. I'd like to see you expand on it a bit. Regarding Citizens United, both the "money is speech" argument and the "corporations are people for certain purposes" concept existed long before it. The actual Citizens United ruling would be more accurately summarized as "the government can't use elections as an excuse to restrict the speech of people who aren't involved in any campaigns". It led to some people trying to stay technically-not-involved while supporting a candidate, but that's a matter of the statute not having been updated after the ruling.