Liberals reacted to the supreme court decision to strike down donation limits on corporations like conservatives reacted to allowing due process for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay.
I don't claim to know much about the constitutional merits of the question, but I share the liberal concern this much: corporations are fictional, legally created entities. They receive the privilege of limited liability for their shareholders. This limited liability subsidizes their levels of risk taking but also comes at the price of extra taxation.
My concern is that the corporation is created for a purpose, and that purpose is economic, not political. When corporations can pursue profit by political means, both the efficiency and the legitimacy of the market are compromised.
The free speech of individual shareholders is not compromised by restrictions on political contributions, as long as they can set up other organizations for this purpose.
Here is where liberals and I part ways: there is nothing wrong with individuals pooling resources together to advocate for a candidate or give money to a candidate. That is the essence of free speech and free association. Money does not taint politics as long as it is not explicitly exchanged for favors.
The solution is not to eliminate money from campaigns but eliminate discretionary spending, logrolling in large bills, and the line item veto. A healthy democracy is one that constrains its legislative process, not its citizens.
