Eliza Newlin Carney's newest column in the National Journal ($$) discusses possible ramifications if the current trend of favoring deregulating campaign finance law continues. Carney notes that, "thanks to a sharp right turn in the judiciary, from the Supreme Court on down, those who favor a world without rules may be about to get their wish."

Sens. Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ) recently spoke about the Citizens United case on the Senate floor, defending the rules they helped write. According to Feingold; "It's hard to imagine a bigger jolt than to strike down laws in over 20 states and a federal law that has been the cornerstone of the nation's campaign finance system for 100 years. The settled expectations that would be upset by this decision are enormous."

And McCain spoke for almost an hour. "Overturning Supreme Court precedent would open the floodgates to unlimited corporate and union spending during elections and undermine election laws across the country. Those able to spend tens of millions of dollars, like a Fortune 500 company or a big labor union, are much more likely to be heard during an election than the average American voter."

Increased spending will not only be from big corporations, but also from 527 and 501(c)(4) groups, especially considering the EMILY's List ruling that will not be appealed. "Combined with the EMILY's List decision, a deregulatory Citizens United ruling would amount to a one-two punch knocking down restraints on outside, non-party political groups. [. . .] Two other pending cases could relax the rules still further. Republican National Committee v. FEC has challenged the constitutionality of both the McCain-Feingold law's soft money ban and the limits on how much parties may spend in coordination with candidates. And SpeechNow.org v. FEC has challenged the constitutionality of restrictions on independent campaign spending, even when it expressly advocates a candidate's election or defeat. Both are headed to the high court."