I’m sure I might be in the minority here but I can’t go along with all the hyper concerns over the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, which purports to give corporations more opportunities to finance favorite candidates in the electoral process. I side with Jonathon Turley who said on the Keith Olbermann show that while he didn’t like the consequence of the decision he nevertheless supported the principle of first amendment speech rights.
If you read the decision, ALL nine judges agreed that a) corporations have had speech protections throughout most of American history and b) trying to stem the flow of money was a restriction on speech, no matter how lamentable the idea of "buying" your favorite candidate might be.
Where the members of the court disagreed was on the acceptance of finance laws in the fabric of American politics. The court ruled on policy and not on constitutionality. In addition to Turley, Glen Greenwald of Salon.com believes that at least 2/3 of all Democrats and most of the professoriate in America agree with the decision. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones Press also agrees with the court on constitutional grounds and rejects policy decisions.
I agree, too. Not only on constitutional grounds but as a practical matter. Can anyone believe that the corporations don’t already spend to their maximum capabilities through 527 loopholes and PACs? Where did $1.1 billion come from in the last presidential election? Only a small fraction came from individual donors and the rest from corporations and unions supporting both candidates. Where do almost all candidates at the state and national level get their campaign funding from? Corporations and unions.
To me, the Citizens United decision mostly confirmed what is already true: Big money in politics comes from big organizations!