Yes, I'm discussing Mitt Romney. And specifically, that for a candidate whose sole identity is one who will say anything to appeal to anyone, he is remarkably bad at avoiding saying things that easily blow up in his face. In Appleton, Wisconsin, in what Dave Weigel considers a general election speech, he said the following:
Workers should have the right to form unions, but unions should not be forced upon them. And unions should not have the power to take money out of their members’ paychecks to buy the support of politicians favored by the union bosses.
Yes, Mitt Romney is proposing to overturn Citizens United, for unions only. His arguments against Citizens United are vague, but two-fold. First, he suggests that unlimited spending of money that comes from a certain source is coercive. Second, the "buy the support of" suggests that unlimited spending creates at least an appearance of corruption.
Corporations, of course, spend the money earned by the workers, and indeed spend money that in some respect belongs to shareholders. That seems if anything more coercive than unions' spending to endorse a candidate some members might not like. (Romney doesn't know, or pretends not to know, that while non-union workers may receive the benefits of a collective bargaining contract, nobody is docked wages unless they join.)
And the corruption issue calls to mind the parable of a man pointing out the speck in his neighbor's eye while ignoring the log(-rolling) in his own.
I think at minimum Romney opened the door to much greater scrutiny of his own donors, and, at maximum, to a call that he should repudiate SuperPACs. If he did so, perhaps Rick Santorum would have won the nomination by now.
Still, the price Romney is paying for a cheap anti-union applause line is to reveal utter hypocrisy. They only way he isn't unprincipled is to treat being anti-labor as its own principle. Perhaps I've misjudged him.