Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards
JPhillips,
I'm wondering just how boisterous you want our sea of liberty to be. Jefferson, after all, had no problem with Citizen Genet coming over here and attempting to influence our politics. 
As for ending private funding of campaigns, that's really not what this issue is about. Rather, it's about whether or not groups of individuals, acting together, will have a robust 1st Amendment when it comes to political speech, or whether or not we'll be shut up while millionaires and billionaires can spend their money in individual support or opposition of candidates. |
To be honest I'm not sure where I stand right now, but I do think that the court's decision to expand the scope of this case to cover corporate and union spending has the potential to lead to a major overhaul of campaign spending.
As to your other points, the restrictions on advertising that this case originally was limited to apply equally to Pickens/Soros or Citizen's United. As I understand it the problem isn't that CU was silenced, but that they ran afoul of spending and disclosure rules that apply equally.
And I'm surprised that you're supporting such activist judges to repeal the will of the people as carried out by their representatives.
