In response to:

Regulating Political Speech

nawlins72 Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 7:30 PM
Fuzz, we disagree again. Corporations pander to government because government has demonstrated that it will intervene into the market, not the other way around. If government were limited in it's authority to intervene, then corporations would have no incentive to rent-seek. Limiting corporate speech does nothing to limit the government from intervening in the market.
It's presidential season, so again pundits are indignant that money is spent on politics. Spent by corporations! And rich people! Because the Supreme Court allowed that, "2012 will be a miserable year," says The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne

2012 may be miserable -- but if it is, it won't be because corporations spend on politics. And anyway, they have a right to spend.

In politics, money is speech.

The very first amendment that the Founders chose to add to the Constitution couldn't be more clear: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ... ."

Yet most people support...