Buckley v Valeo

The theory, of course, will be that, if political spending is a form of speech, there should be no limit on spending that "speaks" directly to a candidate who shares one's policy views.

In the midst of a lively political campaign, with big spending a big issue, even the media can get the Constitution wrong. There is a link, but it is only indirect, between the Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the rise of super PACs.

For those who think that our election system is fundamentally on the wrong track, the only option is to amend the Constitution to allow Congress and the States to do what is necessary to restore some level of sanity to campaign finance rules.

By accepting Super PAC money, Obama is all but guaranteeing that the special interests of the richest 0.01% will dominate the interests of the 99% and his second term will accomplish little to right the balance.

This is not a progressive issue or a conservative issue. This is not a Tea Party issue or a liberal issue. This is an American issue. Money is destroying our politics and our political system. The signs are everywhere.

Preserving American democracy, preventing political bribery and corruption, and insuring that every citizen has an equal voice in choosing their representatives should be a cause supported across the political spectrum.

In the context of Montana's low cost elections, unlimited corporate spending could have a particularly pronounced impact -- discouraging every day citizens from participating in the political process.

The rich use their money to legally bribe politicians to support policies that favor themselves over the middle class in the auction that we call elections. And the policies they support are different from those supported by the majority of middle class Americans voters.

Nothing could enhance American democracy more than if Occupy Wall Street helped enact the 28th Constitutional Amendment to end the pretense that corporations are people who speak with money. The 99% can stop the privatization of government.

Yes, we can demonstrate. We can march. We can write and sign petitions to our representatives. We can occupy. But the truth is, other than the value of venting, we're wasting our time.

To understand why Dylan Ratigan's "Get Money Out" campaign is getting it right, let's take a quick look at the history of Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance.

Here's a 10 point guide to an absurd, abstract, unprincipled, historic game-changer of a decision on Citizens v. United.

Do you really want the sociopaths from AIG, Wall Street trading firms and bailed out banks, who have driven the US economy off a cliff, to have an insurmountable war chest with which to campaign for candidates of their choice?

How did we get to the flashpoint where today's Supreme Court might ignore law and overrule long-standing precedent to allow corporations again to dominate our politics?

Obama will soon be President, working with solid democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. He should use his power to advance consumer interests in ways that have been neglected for decades.