Corporations are people and buying politicians is free speech

The Supreme Court has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election. “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want,’ ” a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.

The decision seeks to let voters choose for themselves among a multitude of voices and ideas when they go to the polls, but it will also increase the power of organized interest groups at the expense of candidates and political parties. It is expected to unleash a torrent of attack advertisements from outside groups aiming to sway voters, without any candidate having to take the criticism for dirty campaigning. The biggest beneficiaries might be well-placed incumbents whose favor companies and interests groups are eager to court. It could also have a big impact on state and local governments, where a few million dollars can have more influence on elections.

The ruling comes at a time when influence-seekers of all kinds have special incentives to open their wallets. Amid the economic crisis, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are trying to rewrite the rules for broad swaths of the economy, from Detroit to Wall Street. Republicans, meanwhile, see a chance for major gains in November. Democrats predicted that Republicans would benefit most from the decision, because they are the traditional allies of big corporations, who have more money to spend than unions. In a statement shortly after the decision, President Obama called it “a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.”

Link

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh. Bad news bears for politics in the home country these days. You can read the decision here, which apparently includes 90 pages of real talk from Justice Stevens in dissent, which I'm looking forward to reading this weekend. On that note, who wants to join Fantasy SCOTUS? I set up a party intellectuals team, so we can all attempt to out-predict future Ivy League law student and Mensa member WrongEmBoyo, as to the slow decline of our republic. I figure Dave might be game?