The Citizens United case involved difficult balancings of freedoms, and even if you think they came up with the best possible solution it is hard to be enthusiastic about it. I am not a scholar of the case, or even a lawyer, but from what I can see the most problematic element of it is the equation of spending money with speech. I know it is not the most scholarly source, but wikipedia said, “The majority argued that independent expenditures are a form of speech, and limiting a corporation?s ability to spend money also limits its ability to speak.” (If anybody here knows more than I do, and wishes to challenge this characterization of the majority argument, I would welcome it.)

The media, and especially the television media, rarely amounts to much more than propaganda, no matter who is being suppored or attacked. To allow unrestricted flows of propaganda, from any source in the world, to wash over the American citizenry during critical moments is at best risky. We open ourselves up to the manipulations of groups whose interests are very much not to be equated with those of America.

I do realize that the American experiment is inherently risky, and that the government does not exist to ensure the perfect protection and safety of every person. And it could be argued that the court did get it right. I might even argue that myself. However, it is hardly a conclusion that I am enthusiastic about. It is at best a painful reality.