Citizens United And Just Plain Citizens

I'm already on record being delighted with the Court's decision in Citizens United (eroding McCain-Feingold). However, my delight is moderated now that I've read it. It's certainly a step in the right direction.

As Mr. W. noted in his comment on that original post, critics of the decision are correct when they say that the balance of power in political speech now lies with corporations. Since there are strict limits on what individuals may give to campaigns, candidates are now obviously going to focus on engaging the help of corporations.
1. The USG simply does not have any power to limit speech, and this was recognized at last by 5 of our 9 blackrobes. However, 2. the consequence of it must be a massive shift of candidates now sucking up to corporate entities (businesses and unions) and away from the piddling personal contribs. In other words, "crony capitalism" will be intensified.
Hadley Arkes has a nice comment on Justice Thomas' partial dissent, which argues the Court didn't go far enough and is further proof that Thomas is the wisest Justice and most original thinker on the current Court. Specifically, Thomas argues 
the disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements in BCRA §§201 and 311 are also unconstitutional
on the ground that disclosure rules subject voters to intimidation (he cites hate crimes against CA Prop 8 supporters as examples).
the Court’s promise that as-applied challenges will adequately protect speech is a hollow assurance. Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—“the advent of the Internet” enables “prompt disclosure of expenditures,” which “provide[s]” political opponents “with the information needed” to intimidate and retaliate against their foes. Ante , at 55. Thus, “disclosure permits citizens … to react to the speech of [their political opponents] in a proper”—or undeniably improper —“way” long before a plaintiff could prevail on an as-applied challenge. 2 Ibid.

I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.’ ” McConnell , 540 U. S., at 264 ( Thomas , J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part) (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC , 528 U. S. 377, 410–411 (2000) ( Thomas , J., dissenting)). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment upholding BCRA §§201 and 311.
Bravo, Justice Thomas!  But Mr. W. & I would go even further than you. What Congress (or the Court if necessary) ought to do  is repeal all limits on individual spending, to level the playing field, because as usual, when Gub'mint starts mucking about in speech, nothing good happens. As Mr. W. notes:
Conservatives were happy with the Buckley decision of the 1970s, which said that Congress could not put limits on how much a candidate himself spent of his own money in a campaign. They were correct of course, but the effect of leaving in the rest of the limits was to create a massive incentive for rich candidates (think Jon Corzine) to buy political office, so now we have lots more rich office holders than before. The Court, in other words, transformed what was supposed to be a pro-democracy reform into a pro-aristocracy reform, the direct opposite.
These 2 cases should be a lesson to conservatives: when the Court overrules legislation as unconstitutional, the Court must consider the consequences of its ruling and take that into account. So the Court should have said in the new Hillary case [the presenting case was filed by an anti-Hillary group -ed] that it could not enforce individual speech limits any more than corporate limits. THAT would have been constitutional reform to write home about!
 What is so hard for Congress and the Supremes to understand about the First Amendment? And why does anyone imagine he can improve on it?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.