"What the Supreme Court Got Right" by Glenn Greenwald.

[Pholus]

134. I guess your dogma demands "deeply ambivalent" means something else..

Certainly I am personally on the edge of my seat to see you attack the following statements from the article as untruths, because that is the ONLY way you can call this article "support" for the decision is to shoot down it's premise that nothing fundamental actually changes:

1) "Corporations find endless ways to circumvent current restrictions — their armies of PACs, lobbyists, media control, and revolving-door rewards flood Washington and currently ensure their stranglehold — and while this decision will make things marginally worse, I can’t imagine how it could worsen fundamentally."

2) "There’s not much room for our corporatist political system to get more corporatist. Does anyone believe that the ability of corporations to influence our political process was meaningfully limited before yesterday’s issuance of this ruling?"

3) "If anything, unlimited corporate money will be far more likely to strengthen incumbents than either of the two parties"

4) " But as Eliot Spitzer noted when urging the Supreme Court to strike down this law (h/t David Sirota), what possible justification is there for allowing News Corp. and GE to say whatever they want about our elections while banning all other corporations (including non-profit advocacy groups) from doing so?"

5) "Isn’t it far more promising to have the Government try to equalize the playing field through serious public financing of campaigns than to try to slink around the First Amendment — or, worse, amend it — in order to limit political advocacy? "