The Washington Post notes that Citizens United protected independent speech, but much current spending seems decidedly non-independent.  And it concludes that the spenders are ignoring or dodging the Court.

I think the blame is misplaced.  In making constitutional rulings, the Court doesn’t directly govern private activity – instead, it reviews the lawfulness of statutes or regulations that govern private activity.  The Court protected independent speech from much regulation, yes.  But that doesn’t mean it declared speech coordinated with candidates to be unlawful.  Statutes and regulations  do that for some speech in some ways, and forego that decision for some speech in some ways.  If the regulatory regime isn’t as comprehensive as desired within the bounds deemed permissible by the courts, that’s the fault of the elected branches of government, and not “evading” of Citizens United.