Brett replied to that question: >>Not so long as you note that there’s already a dam on that particular branch of the river, upstream from McCain/Feingold, with it’s floodgates welded shut. 2 USC 441a.

A pretty effective dam, so long as candidates don’t do something questionable…etc.>>

Apparently, I didn’t make myself as clear as I thought I had. Apparently, too, the five justices failed in the same way.

No, Brett, it isn’t about contributions; that isn’t the “particular branch of the river” under discussion. If it were, then McCain-Feingold would have been redundant, and the discussion would not be taking place at all.

Rather, it’s about direct purchase of advertising by corporations. The dam doesn’t exist AT ALL on that branch anymore.

Not so long as you note that there’s already a dam on that particular branch of the river, upstream from McCain/Feingold, with it’s floodgates welded shut. 2 USC 441a.

A pretty effective dam, so long as candidates don’t do something questionable, like going out of their way disabling all the automatic checks on their website’s credit card software that would check to see if donations were coming from another country… Obama is in a piss poor position to complain about foreign money flowing into American politics.

I guess I must have missed the invisible paragraph in the original post. “Opinion on Citizen’s United???” I saw only a brief comment on the questionable politeness of one of the Supremes at a public exhibition.

Interesting, too, that we have such debate going on about the words–or more importantly, the concept–”opened the floodgates.” To this engineer’s brain, “opened the floodgates” does not equate to “loosed a flood.” It says that we’ve removed the impediment to the flood. This action may cause an immediate flood, if there’s one dammed up, or perhaps it may allow a future flood, if and when the rushing waters flow down the river and reach the dam.

Can that possibility be denied, now that the floodgates have been opened?

As a lay person I challenge you to provide a factual basis for the sentiments you’ve expressed. I suspect that as of today’s date it is far too early for a reasonable person to make such a determination. Perhaps only the passage of time will tell if the President’s claim or Justice Alito’s sentiments are true. Please show that I am wrong by providing a factual and reasoned argument that cites the Citizen’s United decision, the law and recent public events that have transpired since Thursday January 21st, 2010 to show that your emotional claims are not just another example partisan hyperbole.