Greenwald's Latest - He is counter punching to great effect!

[Luminous Animal]

160. He supported a narrower ruling.

His (and the ACLU's) reasoning that limiting political speech by business corporations would also limit political speech of unions, Planned Parenthood, unions, the ACLU etc., because the political divisions of these organizations and near every other large liberal organization are incorporated.

The ACLU's position is thus:
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.

In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

And Greenwald's

(3) I don't disagree at all that the ability of the very rich to dominate political discourse is a huge problem. In fact, as I believe I wrote in that CU argument, I think it's one of the top 2 or 3 biggest problems the democracy faces, if not the biggest. So I'm not in favor of the status quo, where the rich dominate political debates with little opposition (that said, I think the effect of CU on this has been wildly overstated, given that the problem was hideous before, and the examples of CU's evil often cited - Sheldon Adelson and the parade of billionaires this year - were free to spend unlimited sums before CU: that case dealt only with restrictions on corporations and unions, not billionaires).

I just don't think that empowering the state to ban political speech is the right solution (given the dangers and costs involved). Instead, I strongly favor a system of robust public financing to even the playing field - a solution completely anathema to libertarians.

And a link article that he wrote shortly after the decision. Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with it more today than I did at the time.
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/