Former 9-term member of Congress writes here that:

"A minority of first graders, but a majority of the justices of our U.S. Supreme Court insist that Mr. Peanut is a real person.

In a splintered 5-4 decision, the court has ruled that private corporations are people in the exercise of the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Although those guarantees were surely meant by our founders to assure the rights of free speech to real live people and not bloodless, inanimate business ventures — not huge multinational corporations — the court has ruled otherwise.

The court’s latest decision determined that corporations may finance political television ads and they may do so in the days just prior to an election, a practice that had been denied by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. The high court’s reasoning is that campaign dollars and speech are indivisible and to prohibit corporate campaign spending truncates a “person’s” right to expression. Really? A corporation and money have the same right as a person? Holy snap, crackle and pop!

This recent tortured violation of common sense is the latest blow of one first delivered by an earlier court controlled by judges of the political far right. In an 1886 decision — Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad — the Supreme Court granted corporations the legal status of a “person.” That decision from the “Gilded Age” of money and centralized power was the precursor for the free speech finding of today’s court."

Representative David Levdansky is proposing a set of contribution limits for Pennsylvania campaigns that range from $200 per individual for legislative races up to $20,000 to a political party. 

"This really is, in my judgment, the mother of all reforms," said Levdansky. "You change how we raise money ... you will fundamentally change the entire legislative process."

Rep. Greg Vitali has a bill to provide public financing for gubernatorial candidates who limit their spending.

More details are here .

California Republican Assembly Leader Mike Villines has introduced an idea for reforming how political lines are drawn. According to the Sacramento Bee :

Key elements of Villines' ACA 4 would:

• Create a citizens commission consisting of four Democrats, four Republicans and three independent or third-party members.

• Appoint the panel through random drawings of registered voters by county registrars of voters and by the secretary of state.

• Require that final maps be approved by eight members of the panel, including a majority of Democrats, Republicans and minor-party members.

• Include congressional boundaries in the maps to be drawn by the citizens commission, an issue that has sparked substantial controversy.

Under ACA 4, each state Senate district would consist of two Assembly districts, and seats would be drawn to maximize political competition.

"I want people to compete," Villines said.

The 9th Circuit Court of Federal Appeals has upheld mandatory limits on how much students can spend to run for student government.  This keeps the rich kids from taking over the whole shebang.  Aaron Flint wanted to spend more than the other kids, so he took the University of Montana to court.

If this is such a good idea for students, would it also work for other elections?

Kudos to Lisa Danetz at the National Voting Rights Institute for defending the student rule.