I guess time will tell if the alarming cry of the public on tis ruling is merited. 

I do think that the kind of corporations that WOULD take advantage of this new freedom to spend on campaigns are the same ones that would do so maliciously.  Companies that care about their reputations, will probably continue status quo, but there will be those who aren’t as concerned with public perception, that will spend to influence.  And I suspect a few new “dummy” corpoorations will be formed just to hide contributions that might otherwise be detrimentally perceived. 

Overall, I disagree with the courts decision and wonder who bought them??  I don’t agree that corporations should enjoy individual rights.

With all do respect, I too disagree with the ramifications of the decision.  I am though amazed again to see that if one disagrees the the court must have been bought.  What a surprise if other human beings acted in good faith but happened to disagree with my view.  Please there is no need to claim because you did not like the decision the court was purchased. The votes on the court lined up perfectly with the usual voting patterns on these types of issues.

Free speech is difficult because you have to protect the rights of those you don’t agree with just as much as you have to protect the rights of those you do. I think the fallout fears of the ruling will prove to be of little concern. First voters need to look at who sponsors the message on TV commercial for instance. Then voters need to require politicians to openly list corporate contributions on their websites. Any politician that does not list contributors gets no votes. In the information world of today we need not only listen to the message but we the voter need to take the time to find out where the message is coming from and who is paying for it. Democracy requires participation and if the voter sits back and does not engage and seek truthful and accurate information then is when the system fails. Crooks are crooks and always have been.