Super PACs and the SCOTUS

Many of my conservative friends are whining these days about the influence that the negative ads, sponsored by Super PACs, are having in the Florida GOP primary election. My thinking is that this huge dollar door was opened up on January 21, 2010 by a landmark decision of the conservative led United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. Here is a clip from the wiki on the topic:

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision had upheld provisions of the 2002 act, which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, striking down those provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary.

Conservatives say that the court was correct because the issue was free speech. Others are not so adamant about this sort of free speech because they understand that the influx of huge amounts of money in the election process often results in an unhealthy exertion of power. I mean really, does anyone think that campaign finance reform is bad. Does anyone think that large corporate entities are people and, as such, have the same rights that you and I have with regard to "electioneering communication"?

---