>> Regulators will never coherently explain why AIG could not be allowed to go bankrupt in September of 2008.
>>
>>LOL
>>
>>If you want something to really worry about, try this: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-this-corruption-in-washington-is-smothering-americas-future-1882349.html
>
>I've previously commented on how correct the Supreme Court was in restoring a missing piece of our 1st amendment to the electoral process. Money has always infested politics and the "reform" laws of the past have directly contributed to that influence residing nearly exclusively in the hands of big-monied interests for the direct benefit of incumbents. The striking down of these unconstitutional regulations now allows citizen groups, small businesses and other small-monied interests back into the game by removing the hoop jumping obstacles (PACs, 527s) which limited the game to the big players.
>
>So long as politicians continue to increase their power to regulate and control citizens and their money the more monied interests will seek to buy those politicians for their own selfish interests. If we want to lesson money's influence on politics we must first lessen political power. Less power equals less monied interests paying for access to to that power. That's campaign reform that will actually work.

Justice Thomas has summed it up rather succinctly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html?hp

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

He also mentions the history of why Tillman introduced his Act.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”