Campaign Finance Unreformed

Friday, January 22, 2010


The Supreme Court ruled this week to overturn a century-old limit on corporate spending in political elections. Corporations, unions and political groups can now spend as much as they want on political advertising, so long as they don't give directly to a candidate. No one's exactly sure what this means for future elections, but all are fairly certainly that we'll be seeing a lot more ads.

    Music Playlist
  • You're Gonna Cry
    Artist: by Binky Griptite & The Mellowmatics

Comments [5]

Charlie Brenner from Lexington, MA

Someone in your clip said this ruling was a "sea change", and you picked up on that, saying, "...the sea changed, to the color of money." Bad metaphor: A sea change is a gradual but complete transformation, but it's not the sea that changes; the sea is the agent of change.

More aptly, one could say that the Court itself has undergone a sea change, as the replacement of liberals and centrists by conservatives has made it a different institution.

The phrase comes from Shakespeare's The Tempest. Here's the whole thing:

"Full fathom five thy father lies,
Of his bones are coral made,
Those are pearls that were his eyes,
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change,
into something rich and strange,
Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell,
Hark! now I hear them, ding-dong, bell."

Sorry to be didactic, but stuff like that rings MY bell!

Jan. 25 2010 01:01 PM

Yay! It's the 2010 Media Bailout package!

Jan. 25 2010 09:27 AM
William Valle from San Berdoo

At the at of this segment you mentioned we would be hearing a lot more from Exxon. Why?

Jan. 24 2010 08:11 PM
Thad from Jersey

This seems like nothing less than a constitutional crisis. People are guaranteed the right to free speech. Corporations are clearly not people and hold disproportionate sway over society as it is. Does big business currently have so much influence through all media that we're not even shocked by this decision?

Jan. 24 2010 12:51 PM
Kahlid from Philly PA

When the Solicitor General makes an oral argument contrary to her written brief, it's shocking that she didn't lose 9-0.

Jan. 23 2010 12:46 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.