Sounds to me like you're being flippant because you disagree with my opinion. I know what CU was about and the case that brought it before the court. It's precedential value essentially strangled a lot of campaign finance reform efforts and opened up unlimited donations to various 501c groups that were freed to promote political advertising, which allows firms to prop up candidates without direct political involvement. While it didn't overturn the Tillman act explicitly, it made an already weakly enforced law toothless by just making a side door for contributions with dark money.

That's my perception of it, and maybe I don't know what CU was about and you could have educated me.

If you have something to actually argue, argue that. I'd request you don't be such a dick about it also, but I imagine that's a bit much to expect.