<p>Okay, I meant direct campaign contributions. United Citizens did not change the law with regard to direct contributions. You keep referring to the Tillman Act and 100 years of precedent, except you are wrong. This is a red herring; Obama and you can keep saying it all you want, but that doesn’t make it true. Maybe the groupies and hard core will fall for it, but people who understand the law will not be fooled. All Citizen United did was overturn one provision of McCain Feingold, allowing PACs or corporations to use soft money for political speech referencing a specific candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. This has nothing to do with Tillman or any law that preceded McCain Feingold. So much for rolling back 100 years of law.</p>
<p>Scalia is correct. Having politicians regulating political speech should concern all people who cherish our civil liberties and individual freedoms. A few years back, the Democratic House tried to pass legislation which would have severely curtailed indirect campaign contributions by corporations, although would have allowed it for unions. I would guess you were probably in favor of this legislation, even though it demonstrates how politicians will always attempt to manipulate the laws to protect their incumbency and preserve their power. No, I don’t trust govt to tinker with the First Amendment; as a matter of fact, I rarely trust govt to act in our best interests. I quote the Deputy Prime Minister of Great Britain: “The natural inclination of government is to hoard power and information; to accrue power to itself in the name of the public good.” If you care to look, you will find countless examples of govt abusing it powers to stifle dissent throughout history. JW, take off your partisan hat, because all politicians (both Parties) are predisposed to protecting their prerogatives at the expense of the people.</p>