In the 1976 Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court rules that giving money to influence a political campaign was a form of free speech and should be protected as such.
In the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad it was interpreted that corporations were "persons" when it came to Constitutional rights.
So now in 2010 the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether or not corporations should be allowed to be limited in their political donations. Is anyone who knows anything about US history shocked that they ruled in favor of allowing unlimited donations?
Of course there are those who do not know our history and they are suprised.
Blue Hampshire declared "The Doors to Hell are Now Open"
Fix campaign funding and do not worry so much about limiting speech.
Democracy For New Hampshire wrote "Breaking: US Supreme Court opens floodgates of corporate money for campaigns!"
The Citizens United case is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. However, the affirmed part is only as to requiring disclosure by Citizens United, the reversal is much bigger and strikes down any right on the part of the government to regulate corporations like Citizens United in any campaign activity.
Thus, non-voters, non-citizens and non-human beings in the form of corporations, with foreign money, or mob money, or you name it, can take to the airwaves and contribute directly to candidates in an unlimited fashion. And, they are only about one vote away, perhaps two, from making these unlimited contributions SECRET so we the people don't even know WHO is talking at us so long and loud, or who's funding it...
The part in bold is an interesting statement considering that right now Democrats control all branches of NH State and the Federal governments.
Personally I look at candidates before I vote for them, perhaps they should to. If a candidate is able to buy a millon dollars worth of ads for their campaign and refuse to tell where the money came from perhaps they should consider voting for different candidates.
Watchdog sites such as Open Secrets helps track candidate's funding so if you feel a candidate funded by perhaps pharmaceutical corporations... like Martha Coakley was... then you can avoid those candidates and support instead someone more in line with your own ideas.
This is nothing more then Democrats wanting to find ways to shut funding down to anyone they don't like while continuing to allow their own groups like Unions free reign and when they aren't allowed to get their way they cry foul and claim the sky is falling.