Citizens united may have been a good ruling, but absent further reform in political campaigning, we'll continue to see bad results.

  >People don't lose rights just by forming groups.

In principle maybe, but, if only it were true. Try telling that to the many people arrested for political protesting, especially those arrested merely for being in proximity of a protest.

Then there is always the group of people who "choose" to travel by air.

I'm slightly confused by your response. It seem you agree with me that people shouldn't lose rights by being in a group. You cite 2 examples:

   In principle maybe, but, if only it were true. Try telling that to the many people arrested for political protesting, especially those arrested merely for being in proximity of a protest.
   Then there is always the group of people who "choose" to travel by air.

So we're in agreement about people and their rights. I guess the only part I don't get is the "In principle maybe, but, if only it were true. Try telling that to the many people arrested for political protesting, especially those arrested merely for being in proximity of a protest. Then there is always the group of people who "choose" to travel by air." Are you advocating for limiting the rights of groups to speak/assemble/spend & raise money? Or are you pointing out that the current system isn't great? I'll agree the latter - in my opinion the problem is that there is a concentration of power and massive budget - when there's that few people controlling that much money then the incentives will be to try and direct as much of the money towards your special interest as possible. Restricting groups is treating the symptom, not the cause.