The first amendment of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". If this was not meant to at the very least protect political speech, then what is it supposed to protect? The Supreme Court correctly decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the law in question was unconstitutional. Justice Alito publicly rebuked the notion that this will allow foreign corporations to pour money into our elections. In discussion of the appropriateness of what Alito had done, they footnoted that he was actually correct. Reason.tv really shows that this is not Armageddon. The alternative could have been.
This revisit stems from reading a friends post over at http://dubrowsky.blogspot.com/2010/02/supreme-court-decision.html.
Past related posts:
Berman Post: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Berman Post: Justice Alito Shakes Head And Mouths "Not True" During Obama's State of The Union Address
Berman Post: Reason.tv on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Berman Post: Democrats Consider a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election