Will corporate money change campaigns? (The Hill)

[struggle4progress]

... Rob Richie, president of FairVote, said ... "This ruling will trigger a new debate about how best to balance democracy, equality and liberty that must go beyond nine justices on the Supreme Court. I foresee will trigger serious talk of constitutional change - one example being Move to Amend. Stay tuned" ...

Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institue, said ... "It makes a mockery of Chief Justice Roberts’ pious statements during his confirmation hearing before Congress about his embrace of judicial modesty and constitutional avoidance. His concurring decision fashioned to answer this expected criticism strikes this reader as defensive and lame. This decision constitutes a dramatic change in law yet nothing has changed to produce it other than the composition of the Court. Sadly, deliberation on the Court is becoming as ideologically driven as that in Congress" ...

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), said: "Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case. It leads us all down the road to serfdom. It allows corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money to influence and manipulate federal elections. It overturns more than a century of law and precedent" ...

Bruce E. Gronbeck, professor of Political Communication at the University of Iowa, said: "Once again, we run into one of the ugliest First Amendment rights questions that this country faces: we equate money with speech ... Until the Supreme Court is willing to decouple money and speech, until Congress is willing to legislate free air time for electioneering (to go among with free digital communication), and until states go along with similar reforms, citizens will be stuck with the most expensive electoral system in the world" ...

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/77279-the-big-question-is-the-supreme-court-right-on-campaign-finance