Delayed damage caused by the Citizens United decision

Remember the flap over President Obama’s State of the Union in 2010, when he criticized the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court case? The ruling held that corporations were entitled to unlimited campaign contributions, since monetary contributions are a form of political speech (according to the Court). Obama said to Congress,

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.

Chief Justice John Roberts was seen mouthing, “That’s not true” as Democrats stood up to applaud. Unfortunately, Obama seems to be right. Mitt Romney’s campaign appears to be testing out some slimy new tricks in fundraising:

A fledgling company dissolved shortly after making a $1 million contribution to an independent political committee supporting Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, leaving the source of the money unclear.

he seven-figure donation from the mysterious company, which was formed and dissolved over four months this year, is raising new questions about secret campaign money flowing to so-called “Super PACs” under new rules established after a landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law.

The PAC, called Restore Our Future, raised $12.2 million during the first six months of 2011 and was created by former aides to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. The outside group is not officially connected to Romney and can receive unlimited funds from individuals and corporations because of the 2010 Supreme Court ruling known as “Citizens United.”