US Supreme Court Expected Political Ad Transparency

T Murphy writes "The Supreme Court, when ruling that corporate and union political donations were allowed under free speech, assumed the source of the donation would be disclosed immediately under current donation laws. Due to loopholes, this has not been the case, eliminating the hoped-for transparency the Supreme Court ruled to be vital to democracy. Justice Kennedy, who sided with the majority on the ruling, has been called naive for his expectation that there would be greater transparency. In the meantime, campaign spending for House candidates alone is expected to reach $1.5 billion."

Comments

But..

[Hatta]

The Supreme Court doesn't make mistakes!

Re:simple fix

[Hatta]

I see, so you think it's OK to limit someone's freedoms because they have more wealth than you?

If you have a problem with it, I'd gladly trade you those rights for that wealth. Oh, what? No deal? Maybe it's not so bad being a rich bastard after all.