I have mixed feelings about the President appearing to be campaigning for passage of his agenda, rather than trying to work with Congress to achieve the possible.

But when it becomes impossible for the divided Congress to pass any meaningful legislation, it is easy to understand his strategy of using the bully pulpit to influence public opinion and put pressure on Congress to do something.

Unfortunately, Republican members of the House, particularly those from increasingly conservative, gerrymandered districts, are looking over their shoulders at potential Tea Party primary election challengers if they stray from ideological purity. And that is why I believe President Obama's progressive agenda is in for a rough slog.

"Supreme Court to HEAR Challenge..."

Don't they actually have to listen to the arguments, to hear it? I'll give Roberts the benefit of the doubt, but I mean why even bother to have Alito, Thomas, and Scalia waltz their fat, bought-off asses down the hallway from their dark little lairs? There's no mystery in which way they're going to vote on anything.

There really is no constitutional basis for limiting free speech donations in an election.

If you really really like some politician and you want to spend $15 million on a commercial promoting him, that's your right.

You can donate as much as you want to any kind of speech you want, according to the Constitution.

If you could donate as much as you want, politicians wouldn't have to waste months of every year running around fund-raising, and begging people for cash.

We've tried reasonable now it the time to show what unreasonable looks like.

Simple enough:

Have 10,000 wealthy Republicans each donate $1,000 to each of 500 candidates. The total is $5 Billion, with each candidate receiving $5 million.

We have the guaranteed Constitutional right to purchase the government and throw it away.

And if we get to the point where we can throw the government away, then we don't need a Constitution anyway.

All we really deserve is to be able to purchase the government in this way because it's our money.

And what good are Constitutions anyway, they're just laws, and law abiding citizens don't need laws, making more laws won't top criminals.

And furthermore that 2nd Amendment is not to defend the Constitution, but to guaranteed law and order without any laws.

The new Second Constitution will only have three working articles:

1) The Right to Free Speech, 2) The right to Bear any Arms, 3) The right not testify if you have used 2) to stop 1).

Any other matter shall be left to the States or Unregulated militia or settled by a duel.

(PS: The Supreme Court in this case has to rule in favor or they won't have job. Now if they can extend their ruling to eliminate criminal laws, we'll save a whole lot of our money.)

I have not read ALL of the posts on this story but I wanted to put my two-cents in anyway. Who our elected offficials are SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW MUCH MONEY THEY CAN RAISE! PERIOD! There was a movement back in the 70's to make the Senate and White House campaigns federally funded and the House races state funded. There would be a set amount and all candidates would receive the same amount of money. Each state could decide how much each candidate will get for a House race. The amount given to primary candidtes would be considerably less than what is given to general election campaigns. NO INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS ALLOWED! This is the ONLY fair way to run elections in a country filled with both billionaires and the working poor making minimum wage. But we absolutely worship at the altar of wealth in this country. We tend to think that a man making 300 times more than another man is actually worth 300 times as a person. I reject that. It all depends on how you measure a person's worth and I do not measure by how much money he has. If truth be told, wealth is a strike against you in my estimation. But let's assume we are all actually equal. We should all have equal say in the election process. Until elections are run in an equitable way, we will not have true democracy in this country. Also, election days should be on weekends or it should be made a holiday.

We will NEVER see any of this come to pass, however. Once money is in the system, the rich get to make the rules (it's our government's Golden Rule: he who has the gold, rules). The system is now rigged in favor of the rich and I will be VERY surprised if it ever changes. If it does change, that means we've had a bloody revolution because that's what it would take to dislodge those who currently OWN our government.

Welcome to the Corporate States of America! Of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and FOR the wealthy. So say I.

Look at the last election and the amount of money one(1) individual can give a canidate. The court should limit the contributions and the the amount an individual can spend on an election. Keep the playing field equal if not, most of the canidates will be bought by individuals or parties. (wake up America).

Prepare for additional frontal assaults on the democratic process.

Right-wingers would prefer a government anyone can bid to purchase, or a ruthless right-wing dicator like Hitler or Stalin.

Hope the USSC members realize just how their CU decision has disenfranchised many voters in this nation. I hope this time they take a hard look at just how problematic the lack of any substantial campaign limits has ruined our election process. Our government is suppose to be for the people not the corporations and "No," corporations are not people. Those who work in them are the fabric of this nation but not the business in and of itself. Time for campaign reform cap the amount of money any candidate can accept or use and level the field.

From beyond the grave JFK reminds us of what We Must Do...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qqnRRO3zziI#!

Take the money out of politics, and make it so no money can be donated. Then fund the election and campaigns with tax dollars. Then all candidates get the same exposure and advertising. No one gets to out spend the other.

Elections should not be won or lost based on who got the most money. And it would give 3rd party candidates and independent candidates, a fighting chance. It would also reduce graft, which everyone knows is happening here.

I'm still giggling because of all that money donated into super pacs by the Repubs and Obama won anyway.....giggle. giggle, giggle. I can see Carl Rove having to change his dirty underware. Look at it this way....all that money spent by both parties helped our sorry economy.....giggle, giggle......:)

But of course, the Republican National Committee joins him in the challenge. It is after all the Party of the white well-connected - financially speaking.

This guy is suing just to be suing and to get some attention. If you can't figure out how to donate unlimited amounts of money to a political cause then you're not all that bright.