You really should check your facts:
I've checked them.
The Supreme Court decision applies to financing and production of political ads. It especially voided the restriction on political ads by either corporations or unions in the last days of any campaign. It does not OK "undisclosed corporate money" or union money. The ruling stated that the government can still require full disclosure of those financing any advertisement in political campaigns. Will they?
A corporation can disclose they have spent money to influence an election, but they don't have to disclose where they got the money. A sham corporation can be set up to contribute the money and report it, but the actual source of the money could be from only one person if it so chose.
If I've got it a bit wrong, check with Karl Rove, he knows all the details.
You should actually read the decision written up by Justice Kennedy.
And I'm pretty damn sure those last elections had more to do with the voters being fed up with the liberal agenda and policies than it had to do with corporate advertising! At least that's what all the armchair quarterbacking and post election analyzing indicated. At least now there is an antidote for the liberal TV and print media bias poisoning the system.
Were they all on Fox?
