the idea of unleashing corporate $$$ into political campaigns is perhaps disturbing, but e.j. dionne's argument strikes me as odd, especially for a pundit. the only argument is that the precedent is well-established. perhaps it is. but i doubt that dionne argues for rigid adherence to precedents that he himself opposes, which would be incompatible with the argument he gives here, which apears to take slavish observance of precedent as the only standard of constitutionality. i think we all can envision circumstances in which a series of precedents ought to be overturned, or in which the whole kit and caboodle seems obviously unconstitutional.

now i am personally conflicted about campaign finance regulation. i see the point of many (george will, for example, has been obsessed) that regulating campaign contributions is tantamount to regulating speech. o the other hand, circumstances in which, say, investment bankers can directly give as much as they want to campaigns could lead you into even worse circumstances than those we have experienced. goldman sachs is not well-distinguished fro the treasury dept and the fed. but if they could pick the senate, we'd really have a problem. and it should be said that a group of people who can contribute millions are having a crushing effect on the speech of many persons.

at any rate, the thing evidently raises many fundamental constitutional issues, and there's no need not to hear it, and though this might be a bad precedent to overturn, the mere fact that it would overturn a precedent is not the fundamental matter to worry about.