In response to:

Regulating Political Speech

Thomas620 Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 7:17 PM
Having been naive enough to think that I could raise sufficient money to get my message out to the Congressional district where I live, I file to run. What I found was that few people will give to a candidate who has not already raised a heap of money. I could not get a campaign manager to talk to me until I showed him $50-75 thousand in the campaign account. The cost of media was so great that the winner in a six-candidate field spent about 1/2 million. The runner-up spent almost as much. I wound up fourth with 10% of the vote. I spend $15,000. total. Media time is what wins an election. That cost money. That is why the wealthy are the ones who win elections. The problem isn't corporate money, it is the size of the population.
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...