We'd probably be violating some kind of poli-blogger law if we didn't post anything on the Supremes' campaign finance ruling (and we imagine the punishment would involve Glenn Reynolds sitting on us). But, omigod, how can anything involving so much money be so boring? And confusing, too! By the looks of things, campaign donations follow the same course of the Kennedy assassination "magic" bullet.
But we live to serve, so if you need a round-up. . .
New Means For Political Cash [AP/Yahoo]
- Cato Institute chief John Samples: "The court gave Congress more power and job security. The rest of us have less political liberty and a less-accountable government." [USAToday.com]
- The NY Post tries some sarcasm: "When it comes right down to it, who really needs the First Amendment anyway?" [NY Post]
- Kaus isn't that upset: "Because the law turned out to not be as restrictive of speech as most people, including most of its editorial-page supporters, think it is." [Kausfiles/Slate]
- Electionlawblog.org (not, we confess, on the blogroll): The Court showed "its willingness to defer to Congress over the appropriate role of money in politics." [Electionlawblog.org]
- Eugene Volokh: "Longest decision in U.S. Supreme Court history?" It's heavy, too, "weighing in at 298 slip opinion pages." [The Volokh Conspiracy]
- Steve Hayward say to watch for NRATV: "There is an exception in the McCain-Feingold statute that allows "bona fide" media organizations (i.e., the New York Times) to endorse federal candidates, which is one reason why the NRA has been mulling over the idea of going into the media business, perhaps by buying some TV and radio stations." [NRO/The Corner]