Slate inaugurates “This Week In Crazy“:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wanted to let corporations spend as much as they want on influencing public policy without ever having to identify themselves.
In his undistinguished 20-year stint, Clarence Thomas has rarely called attention to himself for original thinking. But if Thomas had had his way with Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, in which the court decided to remove limits on campaign financing, an already horrible decision would have been far, far worse.
Thomas went along with the majority in agreeing that corporations and unions can once more be permitted to spend freely on political issues, thus driving a stake through the heart of the democratic process in the United States. But he dissented in part, because he didn’t think the ruling went far enough.
Specifically, he argued that the court was wrong to continue requiring that the sponsors of political advertising disclose who paid for them.