Supreme Court May make HUGE change to election laws

This is a horrible idea and I can't believe it is even being considered if this is true. Both parties are aready slaves not to the corporations but to the CEO's as they are the now the bosses of corporations. We would lose all control over any aspect of our govt as citizens if this takes place.

This reminds me of that Burger King commercial where the King is reverse pick pocketing. The image that some of the politician that supported McCain/Feingold that politicians are just minding their on business and all these lobbyist come up and start forcing the lawmaker to take the lobbyist cash. The point that no one brings up is why do they lobby to begin with. Government spending and regulation create lobbying not the other way around. It is not a question of which one came first. When governments role was keep in the scope of the Constitution there was not one lobbyist. The lobbyist industry started with WW1 when the federal government was spending at record levels. Lobbying industry keep on going as long as the federal government kept taxing and spending. If you want to get money out of politics just get politic out of money.

I think it's the most stupid idea I've ever heard. As if corruption wasn't bad enough in our government.

I honestly think that the limits need to be made stricter not removed. The amount of money that is spent in the campaigns is just plain crazy! No wonder we have so many lifetime career politicians...they are the only ones that can afford to run for office. That doesn't make them the best ones or the only ones suited for the job, but that is why we keep seeing so many of them stay in office in one form or another for their entire lifetime. If we remove these limits then we remove any chance of really getting some new blood into our political system.

Here's an article which may clear up some of the "who's" and "why's": http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/topic/212 I think it has a lot to do with the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act from several years ago. I remember when this was being debated people like Rush Limbaugh were railing against this saying to limit contributions was a violation of free speech because "money is speech". I disagree because what that boils down to is those of us without a great deal of money therefore have NO right to free speech. I'm no lawyer but doesn't that sound like we have to BUY our voices? Right now every person who is elected to public office and every bill that gets passed is influenced more by money than anything else. We're in a really Catch-22 if something isn't changed. I'm sure there are literally thousands of good people around this country who could serve in congress or in other major offices but they have no money to even get heard at all. Once they raise money, especially if corporations and other special interest groups can give unlimited amounts, they're beholden to those who donated to their campaigns. The alternative to that is having people run for office who can fund their own campaigns. I know there are some wealthy people who still have empathy for the rest of us but they're few and far between. What we need are regular middle class citizens who have lived the same kinds of lives that you and I have lived and know what it's like to go through the daily struggles the typical American goes through. Annie

I have been looking around trying to find out what is going on and am not having much luck. I don't think the supreme court can just arbitrarily decide to bring a case back up again, no other court can unless someone specificly files a motion or suit and neither can the supreme court. given the ramifications of this, I would really like to find out what and who brought this on.