SCOTUS: Roberts Five strike another blow for plutocracy

So public financing is ok, but more public financing of "triggered" funds to keep up with non-public financed candidates is not ok. The SCOTUS wanted to do just enough damage to public financing to render it useless. But after Citizens United, why even try to hide the fact that they're corporate whores?

Read Americans for Campaign Reform

As Larry Kachimba said: In Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, 10-238 (June 26, 2011) (5-4) five Supreme Court justices eviscerate the only effective alternative to limits on election expenditures: public campaign finance. Under its surreal "money is speech" doctrine, the Supreme Court has since 1976 invalidated effective limits on money in politics as a restriction on speech. Now it holds that the public cannot spend its money to match private electioneering expenditures to level the playing field between public interest and special interest in order to control political corruption.