Campaign finance experts predict the court, which has demonstrated an inclination towards incremental loosening of rules restricting the flow of money into politics, will expand the types of ads corporations and unions can pay for. Their only question is just how much the justices will open the floodgates. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins - via The Politico (Politics)
Vogel presents a critically important topic that has largely flown under the radar. His writing suggests bias in that it implies union spending would somehow be a match for huge corporate spending after decades of republican disempowering unions and enabling shipping of manufacturing jobs abroad.
“The court on its own initiative decided that it was going to look at a 100 years of precedent in restricting corporate money in politics altogether. That is judicial activism at its worst,” said Holman, invoking a charge more commonly leveled by conservatives against judges seen as advancing liberal social causes.
Dionne's editorial provides a sharper perspective. Democracy requires limiting corporate power, and public financing of all elections would help return power to the people; the opposite of the apparent purpose of Roberts' huge over-reach by the court.