> It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elec

> It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform.& Thank you. My opinion is the opposite of yours: I think this and Citizens United are the right decisions and free speech should be only be limited in a few restricted circumstances like immediate incitement to violence or terroristic threats. Yet, it's important to be honest about the trade off here and not misrepresent the decisions (e.g., saying that CU determined that "money is speech", etc...) > Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change. Ideal solution for me would allow donations to political organizations, including those that endorse candidates or lobby for bills (I don't like rent-seeking by Comcast, but I very much like the ACLU, EFF, and others). At the same time, the candidates themselves would rely (as you suggested) on public financing. I think this would take a constitutional amendment (as would overturning CU, but unlike an amendment to overturn CU it wouldn't set the precedents of amending the constitution to curtail rights when they are inconvenient), which should also mandate non-partisan drawing of electoral districts (California went that route and with great results).