Donald Trump is the most genuine candidate that we running for president.

Yes, you read that right. Despite his radical statements and sometimes unhinged personality, Trump can truly be considered the most independent candidate in the race.

The reason for this is simple: Being a billionaire, Trump is beholden to nobody but himself. Hillary Clinton must kowtow to various donors that keep The Clinton Foundation afloat, Bernie Sanders has an obligation to the NRA, Marco Rubio belongs to major corporations and almost every single other candidate is controlled by their super PACS (Political Action Committees).

It seems impossible these days to find a candidate whose loyalties truly lie in their own causes, and not in those being pushed on them by others. The reason for all this dependence? Simply put, it’s because of Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court case that determined that independent campaign spending is constitutional, essentially saying that spending money on political candidates is a form of speech.

Essentially, it all but nullified restrictions on campaign donations, and the ability for outside corporations to sway the platforms of candidates has been bolstered more than ever. Instead of donating straight to campaigns, people now have the ability to form their own, private groups to campaign for certain candidates.

Of course, these groups are not simply endorsing a certain person for kicks. They are instead utilizing candidates’ need for money to advance their own agendas.

Furthermore, these PACs do seem to have almost unlimited resources. During the 2012 elections, Restore Our Future PAC, a conservative group supporting Mitt Romney, spent over $12 million on advertisements and campaign necessities. In fact, over half of Romney’s funds came from his super PACS, and not from his campaign’s direct fundraising.

The implications are clear — the people with money have the ability to control the direction of American politics. If it seemed as though the middle and lower classes were not getting a say before, Citizens United has guaranteed that the top 1 percent has even more say about important matters such as tax policy and immigration.  

Super PACS have effectively corrupted the integrity of elections, as candidates are now at the mercy of the corporations with money, rather than being beholden to the people.

In contrast, Trump has his own fortune and does not need to rely on super PACS to fund his campaign. So while he may be controversial and abrasive, there is no denying that his candidacy is the one most likely to remain free of influence of outside interests in the 2016 presidential race.