First of all, Justice Kennedy, as stated in a prior comment, is not a "Neo-Con" as the writer mistakenly suggests. The four dissenting opinions were from "Neo-Libs". The writer falsely suggests that corporations have been given "personhood" and that they ignored "precedence"...Not true, it upholds a 1970s precedent of free speech that included associations, corporations, etc. The writer also states that corporations have long been barred from "pouring" unlimited amounts of money into campaigns...The fact is corporations are still limited on campaign contributions, which the decision did not change. To suggest that foreign companies can contribute to campaigns is ignoring the law which specifically disallows the writer's suggestion...That has not changed. The last thing the writer is suggesting is that normal voters do not think for themselves and would follow the TV and radio adds that candidates, PACs, Unions, and now corporations show. McGee has a very low opinion of the electorate.

I hope this country can find a way, short of a new Amendment to our Constitution, to reverse the money=speech precedent. Our Founders were brilliant, but even they could not conceive of the sheer magnitude of the Age of Money. Since the days of Reagan, who threw off all constraints on wealth consolidation, we have seen the emergence of merger-mania, with money gobbling up money, and what did we get from that? What we got was companies which were "too big to fail", and those policies brought us, under Republican watch, 2 stock market crashes, a savings and loan crisis and a banking crisis. Letting money run rampant sets a course thst is easy to chart. If it is a First Amendment issue, well then we know that even that has limits. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater or using threatening speech. I don't see why when it is money that is involved, all limits are off. Corporations are like contracts, the people involved have personal rights, but the contract shouldn't be considered a person. And since corporations in this day and age are mostly multi-national, this ruling opens the flood gates to our political system being influenced by foreign corporations, just because they are registered in a state. What a bonehead decision.

A study by Yale Professor Paul Gerwitz showed statistically how it was the conservatives Justices that are the most activist, when activism is described as overturning legislation made by the representatives of the people. You can google that for the details. And now the facade has been ripped off completely. These 5 Supreme Court Justices has shown what Republican ideology stands for. Republicanism=Corporatism. Make no mistake, this 'Supreme' Court has just legitimized the corruptive influence and power of money. Corruption now has the imprimatur of our highest court. Money does not equal speech. I'm sure our Founders considered speech to be words, until that precedent is reversed, our fate is sealed. To grant corporation "personhood" is appalling and ludicrous.

Mr. McGee, I have not read the opinion by the Supreme Court, as yet. However, I do believe that even if it's as bad as you and some others believe it may be, that the decision a few years ago regarding Eminent Domain is far worse. After all, that decision gave the government the power to take away your property by force and give it to some company, with only a promise of higher property taxes in return.

The current makeup of the court has Justice Kennedy as a swing voter. Depending on the case, he may side with the conservatives or liberals on the court. He is hardly a neo-con.

Remember the McCain-Feingold legislation in 2002? It was supposed to get the money out of politics. What happened? More money was spent in the next election cycle than the previous one. It has progressed that way ever since. Money does and always will find a way into the elections. If you ban one type, a loop hole is found and the money still influences the elections. There is no way to get away from it.

I may get around to reading the opinion (if I'm having trouble sleeping at night). However, I do want to share a short synopsis I read of Justice Thomas answering a question in a public setting on the subject. He put it into layman's terms, which most lawyers have trouble doing. To paraphrase: A person has the right to freedom of speech. The first amendment prohibits the government from taking it away. The first amendment also prohibits the government from allowing people to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now to quote Justice Thomas, "If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association. If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association. But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?" Link to source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html?hp

To me, in this day and age where we can communicate almost instantly, as long as there is full disclosure as to who is funding what in political races, it really shouldn't matter how much is being spent. Interested parties will find ways to spend money regardless of what the law says. Just ask Rupert Murdoch or George Soros (foreigner).

Also, look at the candidates we typically have for higher office. They either have a lot of money or have deep pockets support. The "little guy" candidate is already drowned out. How is that changing.

We do not have a perfect system. This decision probably won't make it any better. But I don't think it will be as bad as you think.

Thank you for your opinion.

Are you "appalled" at the money and manipulation that the unions have in campaigns?
Could the word "union" replace "corporation"?
Corporations are not people and do not have the same rights, morals or ideals of individual citizens.
Mr. McGee you being "appalled" is at best only "partisan appalled".

this pains me terribly, but i agree with mel on this one--ouch!!!!!!!! I dispise that an office can be bought-by anyone--------money talks, but let it be money from individuals who care. the president should not have taken the state of the union speech to chastise the supreme court.

Amen!!! This court decision is frightening.