THE QUESTION: By a 5-4  decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to wipe away limits on corporate and labor union spending in campaigns for president and Congress. What effect do you think this will have?

THE QUESTION: By a 5-4  decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to wipe away limits on corporate and labor union spending in campaigns for president and Congress. What effect do you think this will have?

They’ll jump on this shopping opportunity
I think it gives large corporations more of an opportunity to buy support in Congress for policies that will enhance their profit picture.
I do not think small businesses will  welcome this decision.
Carl Hubbell, Linn Creek

These gifts come with greasy strings
I think this will increase the number of coporations and labor unions courting a particular candidate to get this same person elected. 
If they are elected, they would "owe" those same corporations and labor unions favors. 
Someday those favors would be called by the corporations and labor unions in order to influence the candidate's vote. 
This Supreme Court decision will have long-reaching consequences. Not only will more money be spent on campaigns, but more money will grease palms of candidates who should represent our nation as unbiased officials who base their decisions to vote a certain way on the will of the people who elected them as a whole and not just the corporations and labor unions who contributed the most money. 
Is that vote buying?  I guess it is no longer illegal.
Sandy Cook, Montreal  

We pay the cost of their giftgiving
I suppose that our unemployment figure will drop substantially in this country due to the increase in the number of  people hired just to work for the lobbyists in Washington.
This is yet another negative change for this country.
In my opinion, the campaign donations made by big business should be stopped entirely or limited to $1.
And maybe, just maybe the businesses will be in a better position to lower their product prices or even give the hard working employees a raise because in the long run it's we the people who end up paying for these “gifts” to political campaigns, not the corporations.
Ron White, Camdenton

Court protected right to free speech
The Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending was a tough decision for the justices.
Obviously they focused closely upon the Constitution's basis for protecting our rights of free speech.
The progressive movements in our country have been consistent in their attempts to warp this freedom to fit more liberal agendas.
The result of this ruling will have little effect upon the outcome of future elections. the reason?
Labor unions consistently spend enormous amounts of their members' "forced contributions" to further their anti-management interests.
Corporations use employees' PAC (Political Action Committee) voluntary contribution funds in support of candidates who are expected to favor their business interests.
This campaign fund jousting can help illuminate issues and raise the awareness of the electorate. Some good is achieved as a result.
In my corporate experience, campaign funds were generated by voluntary employee contributions. In my union experience, the funds were taken from the union dues money pool and were not voluntary.
I note most media coverage of the ruling emphasizes corporate benefits without mentioning those of the labor unions.
Needless to say, McCain-Feingold supporters can be expected to craft new legislation in an attempt to limit campaign spending. Whatever.
The bottom line is – money talks and will always find a way– like water, it always seeks its own level.
Hal Anway, Lake Ozark

Sticky fingers connect to greasy palms
Why were they even voting on the issue - hasn't that already been  decided!
Wonder who's palm(s) were heavily greased to push this issue back  onto the the table for discussion. 
The 5-4 vote is also rediculous to me -   stills sounds more like a tie than anything else - if you can't overwhelmingly vote to change the current policy then it should stick; yet, more proof that if you have money in this country - anything becomes possible.
Nothing like buying votes and influence to gather popularity.  Again, I'm sick of the whole dang thing - seems we are becoming one of those   countries with very corrupt governments the media keeps warning us about or   should I say we already are? 
The big monster keeps eating our lunches and what can we really do to stand up in defiance?  One more giant leap forward for politics, one more step backwards for the citizens in need of political reform.
Michael Kirchhof, Osage Beach

Only thing new now will be the amount of money
It is a matter of free speech, I guess.  My question is, if you apply for a job with a major corporation, are you required to state a political party affiliation before being hired?
If not then there are people as part of this group who are one affiliation or another, or simply don't have one.  This ruling seems to suggest a corporation is now thinking and acting for everyone affiliated with it, a "group think" proccess. 
So maybe that makes them an "individual voter"? 
Politicians have rose or fell based on the amount of money they can obtain and the favors they grant while in office, nothing new now, except there is no limit to the amount that can be bid for those favors. 
And the prospect of an American company with offices say in China, those corporate heads can funnel money into the political process too. 
I know the money can't come directly from a corporate CEO to the politician, but there have always been ways to get around campaign fund laws. 
This is really a bad decision for the real American voter, who for the most part, can't compete.
Cathy D. Palmer, Sunrise Beach

Big cash will have bigger impact
This most recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling will drastically impact American politics at the state and national levels.
Corporations and labor unions will undoubtedly have more influence on the outcomes of elections because they can spend more money for their candidates.
The campaign season will become even longer now since more money will be available for those seeking office.
Sadly, there will actually be less work getting done in state houses and on Capitol Hill because office holders will be on the campaign trail  trying to save their jobs instead of doing the people's business.
It is a very dangerous thing when one group of Americans has more influence and sway in the outcome of elections than another.
The court ruled that this was an issue of free speech. I do agree that freedom of speech must be protected. I also believe we should not use free speech as a license to quench the view points of the poor and underclass.
This is the United States of America and not the "United Chamber of Commerce"!
James R. Hall, Camdenton

America Inc.
This recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to allow unrestricted spending in elections by corporations, unions and companies is outrageously tragic for America. The original law which regulated how much  huge corporations or unions could spend in our free elections system was placed there to safeguard against these folks being able to control the outcomes of elections by outspending candidates and their campaign committees funded through individual's contributions. Although how much a union or a corporation is allowed to donate directly to a political candidate is still regulated, this ruling has open the flood gates for corporations to control the outcome of elections by using their vast wealth to advertise for or against folks running for office. 
This ruling by the Supreme Court will now allow the corporate world to inundate campaigns with negative ads and simply drown out potentially good candidates by vastly outspending them in their attempts to be elected to office. This terrible ruling will allow huge corporations to control who is elected to office and those who are elected to office to be beholding to the corporations that made their election to office possible. This ruling by the Supreme Court will ultimately harm every American and make a complete mockery of our free, democratic election system.
Eric Reeve, Macks Creek

Quest for external power enhanced by ruling
We the people.... Where have I heard this before?  Oh, I remember, I think it's the beginning of a document that insures the rights of people to have their rights and opinions to be heard without interference or persecution.  Right, I think it's the U.S. constitution. 
Between the main stream media, and the current administration we now have another iniative that assumes that "the people" are incapable of the ability to decide whether individually or as a group how they think their elected officials should make decisions affecting their lives.
  I imagine they think that the majority of us are unknowledgable sheep that need to be guided by their superior intellect, complete understanding of all social needs, and need to be spoon fed because of our inability to comprehend even the simplest of our conceptual rights.  Life, Liberty, etc. etc.
 This their quest for what can be considered "external power" which is only a means of self gratification as opposed to "internal power" which is the quest of happiness thru family, charity, and the unselfish service to others. 
This quest might be noted is not confined to the federal level but also state and local levels by some elected officials.  Note I used the term "some elected officials" as there are many who do proscribe to public service as an opportunity to help but it seems that the trend is for self service, not publically minded.
  I am friends with a gentleman who owns a farm just south of Lake Ozark.  Very typical of country people here, quiet voiced, unassuming. So one day he asks me if I'd like his collection of magazines he subscribed to.  They were concerned with physics, astronomy, quantum physics, and theoretical physics.  He quite often wrote in opinions to the editor.  No who would have thunk?
  Granted, not all us are at this level but the government needs to realize that the people are not to be treated as a herded commodity.  Big business and unions with all their money and "power" are no substitute for the will of the people's combined opinion.
Jeff Amsbaugh, Lake Ozark