I’ve read a bit about this lately, and in particular on digby’s and apparently it was on Colbert Report the other night.
COLBERT: Now when I ran for President in 2008, as the Hail to the Cheese Doritos Stephen Colbert campaign for President, I was told that I actually couldn’t do that, that I was breaking federal election law by being sponsored by that corporation. But if this goes through, if this court case, if they win, does that mean that I retroactively won the election?
TOOBIN: I don’t think it means that.
COLBERT: But could you do that? Could I actually just wear a NASCAR suit and just have logos all over me and run for President as the sort of Gatorade Thirst for Justice campaign for President?
TOOBIN: You definitely could. No question.
COLBERT: What does it mean to individual donation? A corporation, as a person, gets to give any amount of money, but I as a person can give only $2,500.
TOOBIN: That’s what’s potentially the next legal challenge. Because if giving money is a form of speech, as the Court has held at various times, you can’t prohibit a company from giving money. And then presumably the next step would be that you couldn’t have limits on how much individuals could give either. That’s the potential implication of this decision.
Colbert is a satirist, but I assume here that the responses are true. So money now equals to political speech (through how speech is transmitted in modern society)? I’m on my break now so I don’t have much time, but if this is true, and if the justices go the way they’re expected to, is this something to worry about? Because on the one hand, moneyed interests already have the government in its pockets, but on the other hand, this would, in my mind, almost make it a monopoly situation.
Any other good sources?