From my point of view, ethics “rules” are an exercise in futility. Especially when congress includes in most, if not every piece of legislation, the statement that congress is not bound by that law.

What is needed are individuals who are not constantly trying to find some technical way to nullify the responsibility each has to obey the law or laws created for everyone else but not them.

Let’s Be Free – I see your point. As I look into this further I see that restricting corporate speech could have further dangerous consequences if left unchecked. So I’m inclined to agree with you that the legal separateness of corporations doesn’t change their first amendment status (it may have other constitutional implications but that’s beyond the scope).

Either way, I still see value in dealing with campaign finance issues by strengthening ethics rules for members of Congress. If the Obama administration is serious about re-opening the issue in light of the Supreme Court decision, then this is the route he should take. I’m not holding my breath.

Justice Stevens dissent is instructive. He writes as if deadtree editions and mainstream media are still the dominant influences in our society. In so doing he attempts to preserve their influence to the disservice of the other channels that have grown and flourished. Stevens as the alleged preserver of individual freedom is actually undercutting it. If freedom of corporate expression is inhibited then the influence peddlers who get in bed with the Government, like Jeffrey Immelt, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt will have free rein to trample the individual without any competition from corporations who play the outside game.

I would like to think that the Founders intended no less benefit of the First Amendment to Ben Franklin as a Publisher and Editor than they intended for Ben Franklin as private citizen.

It is dangerous for politicians to abridge any type of individual or collective speech at almost any time for virtually any pupose.

Legally, yes it is. Yet, using the legal distinction, in terms of expressing an opinion, is what the Supreme Court decision is all about: that behind every legal entity is at least one individual who is expressing his or her opinion.

A good example of this is the AARP. Although it is a single legal entity, there are many individuals which make up that entity expressing their opinions through the legal entity and it’s funds. Unions operate the same way.

Creating a “level playing field” is a siren song right up there with finding a pot-of-gold at the end of the rainbow. It just does not happen.

That being said I think campaign finance reform is a dismal failure, even though I don’t think that it is unconstitutional. I’ve started to hear some really good solutions that attack the problem from the other angle – increasing ethical requirements for members of congress. If someone donates large sums of money to your campaign, is there any reason it shouldn’t be viewed as a conflict of interest to vote on legislation that impacts the donor? If we did this then eventually members of congress would have to choose between taking donations and voting – and it is rather hard to run on a legislative record of constant abstention. Additionally we can shut down the revolving door by requiring that members of congress not serve in lobbying positions for a period of time before or after their time in office. There are probably more ideas that people can think of, but in general I think it is perfectly acceptable to increase the requirements for government employees – and it is something that I can see people from various political backgrounds supporting.

A corporation is nothing more than one or more individuals engaged in business. Where he or they get the money to air publicly an opinion of support or opposition is not really the question. That the opinion can be and is expressed is.

In case you have any doubts, Corporate America has officially been given free reign over Washington DC and American ‘democracy’. The Supreme Court decided yesterday by a 5-4 margin that: The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spe…

I think I disagree. I would say that there should be no disclosure requirement at all, and no tax deduction.

Small contributers with no power could be discouraged by the disclosure requirement, leaving them vulnerable to thugs.

Large, powerful contributers are not going to be significantly impeded by a disclosure requirement or any law, for that matter.

Regards, Don

The individuals that associate themselves with corporations have the right to support whoever they want with their own money.