In early 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited pursuant to the rights these entities have to free speech. This has transformed the entire plateau since the precedent in BCRA legislation which had revised campaign expenditures limitations since the 1974 amendment of FECA; a 1972 legislature (FEC) that endeavored to limit political campaign finance.
FEC required that candidates reveal the sources of their campaign funds and an outline of their expenditures. While FECA of 1974 attempted to curb the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting their contributions to a diminutive $1000 only. BCRA of 2002 revised some of the provisions of the 1974 legislature by limiting aspects of expenditure; significantly, revising unregulated contributions to political parties. However, the 2010 precedent of the Supreme Court in Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission personified corporations into individuals and enacted their right to freedom of speech, hence sustaining the facility of campaign support through PACs, and also limited the access candidacies had to foreign money. The facility of PACs however has given campaigns the ability to diversify the application and value of campaign finance as long as the application is indirect or not directly sponsored by the campaigns regardless of affiliation.
Personally, I believe that campaign financing should be capped for all general citizens regardless of income bracket, but limited for corporations as it is unjust to individualize a corporation in comparison to a one citizen entity. PACs should be compelled to reveal the sources of their funds and must endorse a candidate since their campaign proposals are clearly aligned to the ideology of an existing candidate.