/edit/

>> The origins go back to the Supreme Court Citizens United Case, which scored a victory for conservatives. There is significant evidence of this.

You need to go back further, since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was a "bipartisan" act signed in 2002 by Bush who had reservations about bans on private advertising and expected the Supreme Court would strike down some provisions. Which is what happened in FEC vs Wisconsin Rght to Life and FEC vs Citizens United. Also check out Davis vs FEC that in 2008 overturned the "millionaire's provision" that contributions can be increased for a candidate outspent by another using personal wealth. That sort of disparity caused the original (conservative) sponsor McCain some concern. "By the time I became a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, I had come to appreciate that... money does buy access in Washington, and access increases influence that often results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many."

Is he right, or should millionaires be able to outspend others simply because mummy comes from money or the candidate did a stint as a moneylender rather than a social worker? Either way, the system of checks and balances is working properly if bipartisan lawmakers now agree that the status quo is the intent of the people, or go back and fix their legislation so it does as intended. Apart from that- somehow this is Obama's fault? Can't see it.