I think you're confusing a few different concepts here.
One of the political impacts of the "Citizens United vs. FEC" case was the creation of a new era of corporate influence in politics, allowing companies to "buy elections" to promote their financial interests through many strategies ("Super PACS" being a prominent one).
The "One-Party-Two-Faces" problem is independent of "funding". It existed even before the "Citizens United" case. i.e. "Citizens United" is not a causal variable (and not even a relevant variable) in the uni-party representation of American politics.
"One-Party-Two-Faces" is an evolution of US political realities partly due to the growing ties and shared values and goals of the ruling power elite in an effort to preserve a status quo that is increasingly under attack from other socio-economic classes.
Yeeaaah, but…citizens united cemented the One-Party-Two-Faces ratchet politics that prevails in US.
I think you're confusing a few different concepts here.
One of the political impacts of the "Citizens United vs. FEC" case was the creation of a new era of corporate influence in politics, allowing companies to "buy elections" to promote their financial interests through many strategies ("Super PACS" being a prominent one).
The "One-Party-Two-Faces" problem is independent of "funding". It existed even before the "Citizens United" case. i.e. "Citizens United" is not a causal variable (and not even a relevant variable) in the uni-party representation of American politics.
"One-Party-Two-Faces" is an evolution of US political realities partly due to the growing ties and shared values and goals of the ruling power elite in an effort to preserve a status quo that is increasingly under attack from other socio-economic classes.
Yes, I said “cemented”, not created.