I have read a lot of commentary on yesterday's Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited donations from a single "person" (for the purposes of this rant, we will assume "person" to indicate the SCOTUS definition, which of course, includes corporations).
The wing-nuts are calling this decision a victory for free speech (because, also according to SCOTUS, money is speech). In fact, the NRO actually justifies the removal of cumulative limits on political spending by comparing it to the New York Times spending millions upgrading its printing facilities. That's right. The NYT has spent millions creating a daily paper that has an opinion page which could influence public policy and elections. Therefore billionaires should be able to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians every year without limit on the overall amount donated.
The reality is that SCOTUS has just opened the door of Capitol Hill to the very very wealthy top 1% of our country. If you just look at the posse of insane clowns populating Congress now, it is NOTHING to what can be achieved with an inundation of misleading virulent advertising and a restricted and ignorant electorate. More voting restrictions, fewer voices being heard over the roar of money pouring into campaigns --large and small-- but mostly for Senate.
What the Supreme Court is telling me and you and all the rest of us who don't have $100K to give to a PAC, is that we no longer matter. What we have to say is too cheap to be worth listening to over the roar of checks cashing
SCOTUS doesn't like Congress's campaign finance laws preventing undue influence in politics? SCOTUS says they're unconstitutional? Here's a thought: Ask your Congressperson and Senators to make them constitutional. Nothing will protect our democracy more than a constitutional amendment calling for all elections to be publicly funded and NO money will be accepted for any candidate from and person.