[DonQ]

I am very suspicious of the critics of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Campaign Finance Law.

Virtually the only people whose donations to political candidates is restricted by that law were the Very Wealthy who could kick in many thousands to a single candidate to buy influence and access. The vast majority of us give the sort of small contributions that are utterly unaffected by this law. I suspect that the Big Money interests, eager to buy (or at least rent) a politician, are the ones driving this "movement" to overturn the law.

[steve50]

You better reread it. It's the pooling of money to buy ads that is most prohibited. That's taking the average man's voice away, not the wealthy who can run single source funded ads.

[Zack Nguyen]

The vast majority of us give the sort of small contributions that are utterly unaffected by this law.

Not so. If you've evr given money to an organization that might run an issue ad on radio or television around election time, you are effected. NRA is one group that will be effected.

[eno_]

I'm not Very Wealthy. I still go to work every day. But my spending on political donations has been over $7000 in a single year. Does that make me a fat cat in your book?

[NittanyLion]

In fact it's just the opposite. The most impacted group of people will be those that kick in $50 or $100 toward a pool that will run issue-advocacy ads. Organizations like the NRA come to mind...