Not sure how many of you are familiar with this S.C. case but a decision was finally handed down late last week and it has crazy implications on election and free speech law in the United States. I wrote a ~15 page paper on the case last semester so I found it much more interesting than I normally would have. There are a few different cases involved so it gets a bit complex but you can get a decent idea from the wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Un...Commission

Basically the S.C. voted 5-4 to overturn some of the McCain-Feingold regulations, as well as overturn Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell v. FEC. The case started after Citizens United made a film called Hillary: The Movie, an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary. While the decision addressed political free speech in regards to Hillary: The Movie, it also allows for corporations to use their general treasury funds to directly support or oppose political candidates.

If you thought the political process was slanted towards corporate funding before, just wait and see how campaign fundraising changes in the next election. Political candidates might as well campaign to be sponsored by large corporations in order to secure as much funding as possible. Individual contributions are going to be worthless.

Here are some reactions...

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/22/what...nt=Twitter

By the way, I'm by no means in expert on any of these topics...just some research I did and my two cents.

Would be fun if politicians just started wearing NASCAR type outfits with logo's all over. I'd take transparent, blantant slanted politics over pretending it's not that way.

In one corner a GOP member holding a Coca Cola with a Burger King hat on in a Nike Sweat suit debating a Dem in the other corner holding a Pepsi with a Wendy's hat and an Adidas wind-breaker leaning against a barrel of oil with an Exxon logo on it. Who wouldn't love that?

In congressional meetings, we could have sponsors. This H1N1 investigation brought to you by the AMA.

Ha, classic.

Maybe they could get out of that massive debt at the same time. 50% of a sponsorship fee is taxes to the US govt. debt. Million dollar minimum to get a logo into the house, 10 million for a senator, and billion to get the president to wear it regularly. Barack "Exxon" Obama or George "Haliburton" Bush could have had a good ring to it.

Our NASCAR like representatives and senators could have that trillion dollars covered in no time.