Talk politics.

Diversity of viewpoints would have occurred, had any group of people been able to raise a candidate through a broad base making small donations and actually being represented. What you have now is a few candidates representing the interests of a few businessmen, and the broad base still remaining unrepresented. Even if it had attempted to raise such a candidate of its own, he'd be out-spent by these big players who have the millions. A thousand factory workers from Middlevillestown cannot compete with Sheldon Adelson, Peter Thiel and Foster Friess. They could try, but their voices would still be drowned by the loud campaign run by the super-wealthy.

Super-PAC are not an evil thing per se. Intransparency and lack of accountability is the problem there. We need to know who these candidates are really speaking for - who's writing them the checks, why, what is expected of them, and how are they going to play their role in the game.

Pro-speech vs anti-speech sounds like a false dichotomy to me. It may be about loud speech. And I don't think the ordinary people have access to loud speech. I mean they could shout all they want in their remote corner but if they don't have the figurative megaphon, that exercise seems useless.

It's sad that this is passing for "free" speech.