Yup, we're boned: Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform

[Elok]

Actually, no, no we don't. Hitler was a national SOCIALIST, and has zilch to do with 'right wing thought' as Stalin.

If we really wanted effective representative government, we'd ask the DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of Korea how it's done.

Also, what the dickens does that have to do with the bit you quoted?

[Solomwi]

Story of my law student life. Statutory interpretation is post-modernism writ large.
Btw (and somewhat off topic), are second reading speeches and explanatory memoranda explaining the meaning of new legislation used anywhere that you know of in the US? If so, are they legally relevant to interpreting legislation?

Yes, in the form of presidential signing statements, etc. They're typically relevant, but not binding. Often, legislatures (including Congress) will write an explanation of intent into the statute itself, which carries a bit more weight.

On your question directed to me, I'd take a lot of things out of government's hands entirely. Education is one big example that comes to mind. It's heavily controlled by government, and as a result, teachers' unions are heavily invested in influencing related legislation. Neither of those conditions is necessary for a strong educational industry.

[Straybow]

[Q=David Floyd;5740492]Or, just amend the Constitution. Duh. Why the **** is it that we refuse to use this, the actual legal method of passing legislation that would otherwise be unconstitutional? Yeah, it's hard to get done, but it's supposed to be.[/Q] We don't refuse to do it, we just can't get supermajority agreement on how it should be done (if at all).

As somebody already pointed out, if newspapers have freedom to endorse candidates and issues, then any corporation has the same freedom to speak in that arena.