This week the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a brief in federal court seeking to overturn a 1908 law (yes, 1908!) that banned corporations from giving directly to candidates. The RNC claims that due to the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC which allowed unlimited donations to independent-expenditure groups, that it's unconstitutional to not allow corporations to give unlimited money to candidates themselves.
The New York Times editorialized on the brief today, and not surprisingly, is not in favor.
From the Times editorial: "The result would dash the anticorruption restrictions on candidates’ money seeking under the McCain-Feingold law, inviting a blizzard of money and favors directly between donors and politicians."
The post-Citizens United political world is already rearing its ugly head. We've seen unprecedented amounts of secret money spent by these supposed "independent" groups to influence elections. It was bad in 2010, and if Iowa is any indication, 2012 will be much, much worse. The spending unleashed in Iowa had a huge effect, and though the main story coming out of the caucuses was Mitt Romney's narrow win, the clear winners were the super PACs.
This huge spending raged on in New Hampshire and will continue to have a major impact for the duration of the Republican primary, and will likely get even worse once the general election kicks off. The RNC is essentially seeking to make a bad situation worse. The voices of ordinary Americans are already drowned out more than ever by the spending from super PACs, and if the RNC gets it's way, corporations and special interests will have more control over our elections than we thought possible after Citizens United.
The 1% already controls the vast majority of wealth in our country, which spawned the Occupy movement, and with this RNC challenge to a century-old law, they'll control the vast majority of our politicians and elections too.