To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (37695 ) 8/30/2011 10:36:41 AM From: bentway 3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) | Respond to It freed corporations to devote unlimited, untraceable amounts of money to any candidate they chose, as long as they had no contact and did not co-ordinate with the candidate. I don't mean giving money directly to the candidate, I mean running ads in support of the candidate or cause, or against a candidate or cause.en.wikipedia.org Justice Stevens [22] was joined by Justice Ginsburg , Justice Breyer , and Justice Sotomayor . In a relatively rare act, Stevens opted to read part of his 90 page dissent from the bench on the same day the majority opinion was announced. [23] Stevens' opinion concurred in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions, but dissented from the principal holding of the majority opinion. The dissent argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." The dissent also argued that the Court's holding that BCRA §203 was facially unconstitutional was ruling on a question not brought before it by the litigants, and so claimed that the majority "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law". Stevens concluded his dissent with:
