Campaign fund/spending limits have been lifted, Is this good or bad? Options

[*batman*]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A bitterly divided Supreme Court vastly increased the power of big business and unions to influence government decisions Thursday by freeing them to spend their millions directly to sway elections for president and Congress.

The ruling reversed a century-long trend to limit the political muscle of corporations, organized labor and their massive war chests. It also recast the political landscape just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way.

More at NY Times

In one perspective, I fear that without a fund limit, business will over power better judgement, sort of purchasing our future leaders with lucrative campaigns, possibly rendering other candidates incapable of running. In another perspective, this may be something that can benefit the economy (in terms of money into 'government', hopefully returning money out to the public.)

A good point

The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy made a vigorous argument based on the Constitution for the right of the public to be exposed to a multitude of ideas and against the ability of government to limit political speech, even in the interest of fighting corruption.

A probable reality

Strongly dissenting, Justice John Paul Stevens said, 'The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.'

For now, my stance is against it. I just have a feeling that this ruling was a horrible mistake.

How do you feel about this?

[mipadi]

Incidentally, Obama called out those old rich guys who sit on the Supreme Court:

[Uronacid]

Yeah, they don't show favoritism because they just buy either candidate. Most corporations will donate money to both parties (or both candidates in an election), thus ensuring that no matter who wins, that candidate will be in their pocket.

And Unions don't already to this to the democrats? The Unions have the dems in the palm of their hand. Just look at the health care bill...

http://www.businessinsider.com/healthcare-...retirees-2009-8

Incidentally, Obama called out those old rich guys who sit on the Supreme Court:

And Incidentally, Obama was wrong about what he was saying. The supreme court didn't even amend the law he was referring to. It is still against the law for foreign corporations to make contributions to political parties before elections. Obama was acting like a child when he called out the supreme court on this issue.

[mipadi]

And Unions don't already to this to the democrats?

Did I say that anywhere? Did I say that only Republicans were corrupted by money? You're too quick to jump to partisanship.

And Incidentally, Obama was wrong about what he was saying. The supreme court didn't even amend the law he was referring to. It is still against the law for foreign corporations to make contributions to political parties before elections.

He didn't say anything about amending the law. He said the Supreme Court reversed law that could open the "floodgates" for campaign finance issues. And he is almost certainly right, since the ruling will most likely invalidate a number of existing laws.