Let's leave aside the clarity of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law..."), and instead consider the fear-mongering in the comments from most so-called "campaign finance reform" advocates. Where better to look than at the very top - President Obama's State of the Union speech on Wednesday (1/27/2010):
"[This decision] will open the floodgates for special interests ... to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests..."
Again, let's ignore the misrepresentation that "powerful interests" will now be bankrolling elections; the Court decision made no changes to restrictions on contributions to campaigns. But let me get this straight. Can Obama (and others) be suggesting that corporate involvement with issues and individual elected officials is somehow evil if performed in the context, or within so many days, of an election, but that after the election and for the rest of the year such corporations can be completely free to influence, i.e., to lobby, the decision making process of elected officials? Are successfully elected officials somehow better able to objectively deal with "powerful interests" than are voters? I suggest exactly the opposite to be the case.
Throughout human history, people have desired to influence those with the power to affect their lives and have made use of the tools at hand (from speech to money to armies) to wield that influence. Restrictions on campaign finance or lobbying will not significantly deter the desire or ability of people to influence those in power.
If the problem of political corruption (not limited to corporate contributions, lobbying, or speech, as we saw with back room health care reform deals for hold-out senators) seems more prevalent, it is not because our regulations are insufficient, it is rather because the power of government has grown so much and infiltrated so many more aspects of personal and commercial daily activity. Given that situation and maintaining our principled foundation of the First Amendment, what we should be demanding of Congress is not more restrictions on speech but rather complete openness on finance (who is contributing what), speech (who is saying what), and lobbying activities.
