Art, thank you for your response and for moving my post to its appropriate place. I think you raise some interesting points about artificiality in our society. I also agree with your extension of my analysis that we all (myself included) often choose which Court opinions we agree with not on the basis of abstract theories but simply on the basis of whether we dislike the people whose rights are affected. I do not impute these feelings to Nate, but I do maintain that many people who opposed the Citizens United decision would have been delighted by a decision that exclusively (rather than inclusively) freed labor unions to spend without limit. One cannot cherry pick which entities deserve free speech and which do not.

Caroline, thank you, too, for your insightful comments. Just to be clear on this point, would you embrace the Austin decision if it had asserted that "labor union wealth can unfairly influence elections"?

Your answer to that question may well be yes, but even so, I think there are real problems with the Austin argument, namely that it is vague. What is an "unfair influence"? Equally troubling, who gets to decide?

Your fears about government corruption are legitimate, but campaign-finance legislation can have its own corrupt motivation. Incumbents already hold an almost insurmountable advantage in elections. There are no term limits for members of Congress or for elected judges. Isn't it troubling to enable them to legislate (and uphold) limits on how much can be spent to unseat them?

-- SamHershey - 03 Feb 2010