Important report demonstrating that the Supreme Court's optimistic expectations for how their campaign finance ruling would play out have been defied in reality.

Calling Justice Kennedy's opinion "naive" is the understatement of the year. Stupid would not be far off the mark.

the writer here points out the f e c 's role in what's changing the money in this election--not just the corporation as person but the lack of disclosure for campaign ad funding,and the 'naivite' of the supreme court justices

This is quality journalism. It shows the lack of knowledge the majority in the Supreme Court decision and the opinion of a former conservative member of FCC. What is happening to our Country?

The information may not be new but it reinforces a much needed vigil on the consequences of the Supreme Ct.'s Citizens United decision.

I may have an unrealistic view of what I expect journalism to be. For instance expressing unions and corporation have been able to avoid transparency as a fact and then reporting who gave what to whom is kind of a leap.

This article provides a clear summary of the changes that led to the flood of corporate spending on political campaigns and Justice Kennedy's opinion that there would be full disclosure of donors. Unfortunately, the Justice was not aware of the loopholes that existed in the disclosure laws. What is missing is a suggestion of what might be done to remedy the problem and how to overcome the damage it has already done to our election.

David Savage is a paid propagandist. His monthly Salary doesn't justify his personal living arrangements in the DC area. His writings are to be question on every level. Who does represent? And from whom will his opinion benefit? The article seems to reflect a disdain for the Supreme Court for allowing corporate and union contributions. His opinion should be worthless, It's my opinion that important!