Replies

I am not a great worrier about the power of soft money but that appears to be the concern of the CFR. This means I don't have to backtrack on Liddy since I don't think that was the source of her victory. She won principlely imho because of name recognition and personality.

I must admit I pretty much agree with Keyes on that, it is inconceivable to me that the Founders would approve of Billionaires having the power to sway the votes of millions.
They would believe that such power in the Plutocracy would be the very essence of Tyranny. We must recall that even the very richest of that day had little cash almost all their wealth was in land, slaves or other illiquid assets. Thus, such a worry did not exist.

Nothing would prevent those citizens from doing what you what if they form a PAC to do it. Or if they fund it with hard money (no that doesn't mean the CFR boosts gold bugs.)

Well, Keyes was for unrestricted, fully-disclosed donations from individuals only. I do not agree that full-disclosure eliminates the influence of individuals.

If soft money isn't that big a problem, then restricting political speech is unnecessary and unwarranted.

If you only mean to point out that the consequences of the law are not as dire as many believe, that is one thing. It is another entirely to argue that soft money is a threat to democracy, restrictions on political speech are therefore warranted, and based on all the so-called "loopholes" that are becoming apparent, more restriction will be necessary in the future.

The majority in the decision practically begged Congress for more when it said: "...we are under no illusion that BCRA will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day."