Quoted from NYT editorial: What Price Politics? Published: February 4, 2010
'A binge of special interest money seems inevitable unless Congress acts quickly — before this year’s election — to repair the damage from the Supreme Court ruling that ended restraints on campaign spending by corporations and unions.'
This seems like a bad idea. With McCain Feingold, there were questions about the constitutionality of the law, and lax enforcement, which meant that those who broke the law and won were rewarded, while those who followed the law and lost were punished. The same thing will happen if Congress tries to thwart the intentions of a clearly very activist Supreme Court.
I suggest bold attacks on the corporations whose messages we don't like. They should be hammered just like candidates. The names and addresses of their execs and major stock holders should be exposed, their love-lives laid bare. Their stores should be picketed, boycotted, struck, and investigated. Their ad-campaigns and PR efforts should be mocked and parodied to the point of destroying any positive value they have to the company. Stock holders should be cold-called and urged to sell so as to avoid negative publicity. Nasty, yes, but not actually violent, and arguably legal. The law is broadening its definition of political speech, so let's go with it. Better than an ineffective law that's half enforced, and only hurts those too scrupulous to break it and win.
Congresspersons, even the ones we like, are already owned and operated by corporate interests. They will not write laws that hurt their bosses, and their bosses are whoever signs the checks. So why waste time pretending to write a law we know will be counterproductive? Unless wasting time is the whole point...