Citizens United - the sequel

I find two things about this to be deeply troubling. One is that it is deeply troubling. The other is that so few other people seem to find it deeply troubling -- if they are even aware of it at all.

Quote:

Issue: (1) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to national party committees; and (2) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), are unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest; and (3) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and facially; and (4) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...on-commission/

Quote:

Defending the limits, Solicitor General Don Verrilli pushed back, telling Scalia that in that scenario fewer than five hundred people would be enough to fund the whole election. That, Verrilli warned, would create “a very real risk that . . . the government would be run of, by, and for those five hundred people and that that public will perceive that the government is being run of, by, and for those five hundred people.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/th...plain-english/

via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=267881&goto=newpost