Scalia told me a secret about George W. Bush

[SDJay]

24. And I'm Happy For Them

This goes into the whole reality of the passing of time. Paying for printing pamphlets in the 1700s is a whole lot different than buying candidates, politicians and representatives with hundreds of millions of dollars. How many different ways should I express my opinion? Money = protected speech should not be an absolute. It should not be protected when it's purchasing influence on government. That's not democracy as I see it.

And once again, it doesn't matter that I think it's asinine. It's the law, the SC has spoken and that's that.

Do you agree that the Sheldon Adelsons of the world should be allowed, actually protected by law, to run amok buying elections and undue influence? If so, that's fine - I don't.

In essence, I see your Nathan Hale/Ben Franklin and raise you the Koch Brothers. I don't think a broad brush is satisfactory here. Money = speech should not be a universally accepted standard. It's inherently unfair and undemocratic when it comes to making policy.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, but folks on your side of the debate get the win because the law, such as it is, is on your side and won't change anytime soon.