The American Spectator

sinanju| 1.21.10 @ 10:47AM

No restrictions on giving, combined with full, real-time internet disclosure. That way, everyone will know who is owned by who and can vote accordingly. I've been hearing for ages now, how congresscritters bemoan the restrictions force them to spend all of their time fundraising.

Who know, considering all the elaborate efforts expended at subterfuge in getting around the rules it might even stimulate the economy.

Anyone who still thinks they can "get the money out of politics" is as dumb as Juan McCain. All such attempts have only made the situation worse.

Brian in MA| 1.21.10 @ 11:16AM

The rules were clearly ineffective in preventing Soros from spending money where and when he wanted, so why have them?

jm-in-ia| 1.21.10 @ 12:09PM

Unbelievable! "...unconstitutional restraint of free speech..." This amounts to freedom of speech for Only the rich. The average American could never afford to buy the ear of anyone in Congress or to buy anyone's vote or way into office. Only the well-funded will get voted into office, so only the corrupt will rise to power. I've always thought that things would change dramatically for the good of The People if each candidate had to play with the same amount in campaign funds and if the occupation of lobbyist could be made obsolete. What a foolish dreamer I am.

AllenG| 1.21.10 @ 12:20PM

You are foolish. At least, about this.

You will never get the money out of politics. Period. Full Stop. Ergo, to attempt artificially to remove the ability of groups (make no mistake, while "Corporations" and "Unions" are mentioned, this mostly hurt citizens groups and PACs) to influence elections is absurd.

Further, lobbying is specifically protected by the Constitution, and I, personally don't have the time to be up at the Capitol steps every day.

If you want the corruption out of politics, go with unlimited contributions and full disclosure. Then support the _companys_ who are supporting the candidates you support.

And get as many of your like-minded buddies together as you can (ala the Tea Parties, and Scott Brown's week-long money bomb) and I think you'll see that you _can_ influence elections.

Liberal Reader| 1.21.10 @ 1:57PM

I wonder if the Tea Partiers -- if they are truly as critical of the Republicans as they claim -- will protest this decision.

The Court's logic -- which we know in advance -- is fairly reasonable. Once you decide that money is speech, how can the government limit the purchase of government by corporations?

The problem with this argument is that we do this sort of thing ALL the time.

Pornography is speech. It is speech that debases and exploits people; it is found, therefore, to be so contrary to the public good that there is a "legitimate state interest" in limiting or even outlawing it.

And right we are to limit pornography. Ask me, it should be entirely banned, along with strip-joints.

Ban corporate (and union) pay-offs. It corrupts our government. It debases our political discourse. It debases the great project of self-governance.

Why should Bank of America or Exxon / Mobile have a PRIVILEGED voice in government?

Let their executives advocate for any cause they wish, by all means.

But Congress should consider an Amendment limiting the speech of corporations so that the voices of citizens can be heard.

AllenG| 1.22.10 @ 6:30AM

Ummm... most Conservatives I know think banning any but the most exploitive versions of pornography (kids, mostly) should not be on the table. We hate the stuff, but that doesn't change others' rights to say or hear it.

Further, the Court's Decision was that Congress can REGULATE such political speach as campeign contributions- and has done so. What they found Unconstitutional was a ban on such speach.

Further- is there any doubt that BoA or Exxon/Mobile already have a privileged voice in government? Who this was really hurting was not Big Business- it was small to medium businesses who might be able to afford political advertising (especially if they joined together) but can't outright buy their own Senators and Congressmen- which Big Businesses still pretty well could.

Remember: Big Regulation is the friend of Big Business.