Bryan — thank you. It was “reversed a century of law” that shocked me as an outright lie. Oh, don’t forget inflation! That was worth at least .05

“reversed a century of law”: The Court reversed the holing of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). That would be 20 year ago.

“foreign corporations”: We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and
expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”).

They should be decided by the American people.: Last time I checked, only “We the people” get to actually vote, and I’m pretty sure it’s the amount of votes that decides an election, not how many ads one side runs on television. I’m not sure how the logic of “ads deciding elections” goes.

And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.: Good luck with that! Unless the “bill” is a constitutional amendment that revises the 1st Amendment.

All other things aside, I’m really not buying the “doomsday” predictions from certain folks who think that this will allow “Evil Corp, Inc.” to elect “their guy” to political office any more than they already do or don’t. This decision allows corporations (which remember, are just groups of people working in a common enterprise) to spend money to say what they want about political issues. Just because a TV ad is aired doesn’t mean that it is going to convince everyone. I’m sure everyone can think of a commercial that actually makes them NOT want to buy that product for one reason or another.

On the other side of the coin, if I was advising the President on how to address a Supreme Court opinion that he disagreed with, I would tell him to say something along the lines of: “The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United addressed the issue of political speech by corporations. And although the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of such matters, I believe that this decision may have negative consequences that lie outside of the Supreme Court’s purview. Accordingly, it is up to the other two branches of government to protect against any such negative consequences that may result from this decision. The Supreme Court is not here to micro-manage; it is up to the other branches of government to work within the scope of their Constitutional authority to pursue these safeguards.”

Just my .02