Following the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance issues, the reaction from voters is mixed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 26% agree with the ruling, 34% disagree, and 41% have no opinion. Republicans were more supportive than Democrats and unaffiliated voters fell in between. A plurality of Democrats and unaffiliated voters had no opinion while a plurality of Republicans agreed with the ruling.

By a 60% to 27% margin, voters reject the notion that corporations and unions should be able to buy advertising to “influence elections.” However, by a 53% to 37% margin, voters believe corporations and unions should be able to buy advertising expressing their views on national issues.

Hillarysmygirl16 wrote:

---

Wonder how Obama really feels about this?  I think this is a bad idea. This is going to make buying an President even easier.

---

"

The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Democracy

By Noam Chomsky, February 3, 2010

Jan. 21, 2010, will go down as a dark day in the history of U.S. democracy, and its decline.

On that day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban corporations from political spending on elections—a decision that profoundly affects government policy, both domestic and international.

The decision heralds even further corporate takeover of the U.S. political system.

To the editors of The New York Times, the ruling “strikes at the heart of democracy” by having “paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.”

The court was split, 5-4, with the four reactionary judges (misleadingly called “conservative”) joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. selected a case that could easily have been settled on narrow grounds and maneuvered the court into using it to push through a far-reaching decision that overturns a century of precedents restricting corporate contributions to federal campaigns.

Now corporate managers can in effect buy elections directly, bypassing more complex indirect means. It is well-known that corporate contributions, sometimes packaged in complex ways, can tip the balance in elections, hence driving policy. The court has just handed much more power to the small sector of the population that dominates the economy. (Emphasis added)

Political economist Thomas Ferguson’s “investment theory of politics” is a very successful predictor of government policy over a long period. The theory interprets elections as occasions on which segments of private sector power coalesce to invest to control the state.

The Jan. 21 decision only reinforces the means to undermine functioning democracy.

The background is enlightening. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledged that “we have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment”—the constitutional guarantee of free speech, which would include support for political candidates.

[SNIP]

The Jan. 21 decision raises significant new barriers to overcoming the serious crisis of healthcare, or to addressing such critical issues as the looming environmental and energy crises. The gap between public opinion and public policy looms larger. And the damage to American democracy can hardly be overestimated.

"

More . . .

===============================

I am afraid I agree with Naom Chomsky totally in this. It is very unfortunate that the SCOTUS ruling tips the balance so heavily in favor of the corporations. It makes all future legislations that much harder to accomplish, with corporations pouring money into elections in addition to issue positioning which they already do plenty.