Probably, but it could also be just a personal grievance. Remember that
Citizens United involved an anti-Hillary movie that a nonprofit corporation wanted to air and advertise within 30 days of the 2008 primaries.
Someone made an interesting comment on twitter, even if Citizen's United is overturned could a billionaire theoretically self fund their own campaign with billions of dollars?
Yes.
Citizens United had nothing to do with how a candidate finances his or her campaign. It dealt with independent expenditures by corporations--i.e., expenditures on political speech relating to a candidate that are not coordinated with a candidate. (Of course, my answer assumes that whatever is done merely overturns
Citizens United, and doesn't go further by, for example, authorizing Congress to make any and all campaign-finance laws it wants to, notwithstanding other provisions of the Constitution.)
I looked it up, and this is what I found:
Davis v. FEC SC case seems to state that it's 1st amendment infringement to limit self financing rules. I'm thinking that this is so similar to Citizen's United's ruling that it might also be affected by a CU change, but maybe not?
NYCmetsfan is right that what matters here is
Buckley v. Valeo, not
Davis. In
Davis, the Court considered whether it was constitutional for the government to increase the contribution limits for contributions to a candidate running against a self-funded candidate who spent above $350,000 of his own funds on his campaign. If you read
Davis, you'll note that the Court even cites
Buckley for the proposition that a "candidate
has a First Amendment right to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own election." In
Davis, the Court simply recognized that the one-sided contribution-limits increase imposed an (unjustified) substantial burden on the right recognized in
Buckley, and was therefore invalid.
In summary, overturning
Citizens United would not, on its own, affect whether a candidate can self-finance his or her campaign. Those are two completely separate issues.
Dear God, Jesus created whataboutism:
"Jesus, eating food without washing your hands isn't healthy, dude."
"Well... you're shitty parents!"
Not that this is politics, but you're misreading that. The Pharisees weren't concerned with health, but with ceremonial purity as dictated by "the tradition of the elders." And Jesus didn't say they were shitty parents, but that their ceremonial standards for purity were not God's law, and that, in fact, that "tradition of the elders" was contrary to God's law in some instances. He then elaborated to the crowd, teaching that "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth." A more accurate paraphrase of the exchange (maintaining your own vulgar style) would look something like this:
"Jesus, duder, why don't your disciples follow our rules and regulations about how they wash their hands?"
"Because, Brosephs, your rules are bullshit through and through. Let me tell you what
really matters."