"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court returns on Wednesday to consider ending long-standing limits on corporate and union spending in political campaigns -- a move critics say could give big money more influence over U.S. elections."
Why in the world would the SCOTUS even entertain the thought of such a plan, much less consider hearing a case proposing the existing law be stricken from the books?
Could it be that in the rarefied air of Washington D.C. elitists, with their personal security being provided by the United States Marshals Service, and their $200,000+ jobs, "The Supremes" have lost contact with John Q. Public. Money and power are attracted to one another, and when they combine into a single entity they frequently create a third entity - a revised, all-consuming, monstrous, political behemoth which devours any who dare stand in its way.
At what point does that which is best for "We the People" get taken into consideration? Do we desire, or deserve, "the best government that money can buy", or do we demand that government consider the rights and needs of the people first, and those of corporations and unions after the fact?
Personally, I believe that corporations, unions, or any entity with more than 10 people involved should be limited by law to contributions totaling no more than $5,000 for any single campaign at any level of government (city, county, state - and, at the Federal level, the House and Senate. Relatively insignificant sums would not place our elected officials in the hip pocket of corporate America, the unions, or other big money entities. It would tend to keep them in the service of "We the People" - which is exactly where our Constitution says they must be.
I suppose there's a slight chance I could be wrong about how I see this. With the sinister left-wing direction our current government is taking, it appears that we don't care if the desires of the moneyed few take precedence over the needs and desires of "We the People".