I am glad to see this rare rescinding of an infringement on liberty. One small win for us.

I guess I agree with the general rule that people and businesses should be allowed to spend their money on whatever they want. The problem is that the electorate is so stupid on average that they vote for candidates based on stupid things like physical appearance or who had the most tear jerking TV ad. The other issue is individuals or corporations that use money as a means to buy power over others which is supposed to be illegal for logical reasons but of course there are loopholes. When you allow pay to play to get out of hand you end up with a monarchy/oligarchy which I'm sure were not the founding fathers' intentions.

My feeling is the same, I applaud the win for free speech. Unfortunately, we have a lot of sheep in the US.

All this really is is a counter to the unlimited campaigning being done by labor unions who overwhelmingly shill for Democrats. Note that it doesn't eliminate the individual contribution limit, it just allows you to spend that limit on as many candidates for Federal Government as you want.

Money is speech. Plus, it is not like the Dollar is actually 416 grains of silver. A million dollars just does not buy what it used to. I remember Mars Bars at a Nickel.

Money is Speech here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...
And here: Money as Press and Speech
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2013/...

I had a buddy in college who had this idea to set up a online service that helps middle class people lobby. The users could do pledge a donation to a candidate conditionally. For example I could pledge $2 to all candidates that voted against SOPA and PIPA or maybe $100 to be split between all those that vote my way. Once the votes are in I make the final decision and donate. The candidates would be able to look at general information (made public) like how much total money people are putting against or for a bill and how many people are doing so. People's personal donations would not be made public unless they chose to publicize them.

When you sign a petition it means very little. When you send an email it means just a little bit more. Sending a physical letter is a step up. The act that means the most to a candidate is a phone call. Imagine how much meaning a message has when the masses are putting their money behind it. This idea would hopefully give more volume to the words of middle class people who would use it. It comes with a price but the price itself is what gives it its value.

This could also help deaden the "threat of big bad business" taking over the government. The truth is the big government is taking over business and lobbying is more like an under the table tax.

It's not my idea and it's not that developed, but I want to know what the people of Galt's Gulch have to say about it.

SO many ways the Federal government uses the Commerce Clause for their power grab.
Here is a case where they could use it and don't.
Interesting.

Not positive about that. Thoughts? I'll need to look up the Commerce Clause again.

A serious reverse for the enemies of freedom. Those same enemies probably meant to use campaign "funding" limits to move against anyone publishing an opinion they didn't like. The Supreme Court said they may not do that, whether they apply the rule consistently or not.

When will those dolts strike down the censorship of "free speech zones"?
Obviously, the answer is NEVER, because they serve the nefarious purposes of the elite and looters, as does this judgement.