So, the SCOTUS is contemplating another campaign finance law. Perhaps they'll bust open the bank for individuals to have no contribution limits. Super idea! I suspect if they thought Citizen's United was reasonable, then this one is a logical extension. (And if you had any doubt, yes,these challenges to campaign finance come from one side of our political divide.)
All of which leads me to one question for our conservative brethren on this site:
If more than $2Billion dollars was spent in this last election cycle, WITH an individual cap to candidates, WHAT is the benefit to the electorate of the additional uncounted billions?
What, exactly, didn't we learn about our fair candidates from the 24+ mos. of relentless TV ads, phone push-polls, newspaper ads, billboards, awkward coffee shop photo-ops, and door-to-door paid campaigners that will now make us see the light? Was anyone asking for more of any of that so they could really, really understand who they were voting for?
Help us understand, please? Surely there must be a good reason why more is better? We the people must have a benefit here, right?