I assume this is a very naive thought, but could someone who knows more about the law then I shed some light for me? It seems that its just another form of election spending, and I can't think of any way in which its different than political advertising, aside from likely being more effective. If there are no limits, then there should be no limits. I wonder if anyone will ever have the balls to challenge this law. It would be the best example of a reductio ad absurdum as I could think of for why Citizens United is a poor legal opinion.
- "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
I don't see Citizens United lasting too long. I think it will be challenged somehow and it's an embarrassment to the court that they'd like to see rectified. Or maybe this is just wishful thinking. Your "natural extension" makes sense to me. Someone should try and challenge it as an exercise of free speech. I wonder if somehow it would fall under commerce laws though? There are a number of things that are illegal to buy/sell, do they also inhibit our freedom of speech? Who wants to challenge the law? I'll give you $10 to vote for Buddy Roemer.