I would first remind everyone not to panic.The US Supreme Court has struck down overall contribution limits for individual political donors.
The court ruled 5-4 that individuals could give to candidates, parties and political groups without observing an overall cap of $123,200 (£74,000).
The ruling leaves in place the limit on how much a donor can give to a single candidate - currently $2,600 (£1,560).
The decision is the latest in a series which have loosened restrictions on US campaign finance.
Contribution limits were established by Congress in the 1970s in an attempt to restore the public's faith in government after President Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal.
'How you choose'
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in Wednesday's majority opinion that overall limits "intrude without justification" on first amendment rights, the clause of the US constitution that enshrines freedom of speech.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Today's decision eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws ”
Stephen Breyer
Supreme Court judge
Critics say the ruling will expand even further the influence of big money in politics.
Four years ago, the Supreme Court lifted limits on election spending by political action committees, in a landmark case known as Citizens United.
Last year the court removed restrictions on states with a history of race-biased voting laws.
That prompted activists to say the court was making it harder to vote in but easier to buy elections.
Wednesday's decision split the court along its liberal and conservative wings, with Justice Stephen Breyer taking the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.
Continue reading the main story
'A great day', but for who?
"A country that expands the rights of the powerful to dominate the political process but does not protect fundamental rights for all citizens doesn't sound much like a functioning democracy to me" - Ari Berman in the Nation
"The Court has reversed nearly 40 years of its own precedents, laid out a welcome mat for corruption, and turned its back on the lessons learned from the Watergate scandal" - Miles Rapoport of Common Cause
"This latest outburst of judicial activism in the struggle to render campaign finance laws completely toothless is merely accelerating a historical process that is coming to seem almost inevitable" - Paul Campos in Salon
"This is a great day for the First Amendment, and a great day for political speech" - Chris Chocola, of Club for Growth
More bad things to come?
He wrote: "Taken together with [Citizens United], today's decision eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve."
The case was brought by Shaun McCutcheon, a Republican and owner of the Coalmont Electrical Development Corporation in Alabama.
Before the US elections two years ago, Mr McCutcheon made individual donations to 15 congressional candidates.
But he was unable to donate to another dozen candidates because that would have broken the overall limit.
"It's a very important case about your right to spend your money how you choose," Mr McCutcheon has said.
He told the Associated Press news agency that he planned to spend several hundred thousand dollars ahead of November's midterm elections.
The US government's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, argued during the case that without the overall limit, one donor giving the maximum allowed to every congressional candidate, political party and political action committee would top $3m in a single election cycle.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 646 donors in the 2012 election cycle hit the overall donation limit.
They gave $93m to candidates and committees.
I'm not saying I agree with this ruling or that I view it as a good thing, but let's look at what it actually is. What this means is the limit of amount of money you can give in a year is gone. The limit to what you can give to a specific candidate is still there. So frankly money is gonna more spread around rather then focused with this ruling (well they can donate the state party organizations which would in theory spread the money around).
I will also remind everyone that there is a certain point where money does you no good. Having more money doesn't mean you're gonna win, and there's a point where you reach peak saturation and it doesn't matter how much more money you throw in, it won't have any effect.
So this is not the death knell of American democracy, we have been in worse situations. There was a time when there were no rules after all. It is a problem that we will have to confront and fix and that is gonna take a lot of time and effort. But if the game was easy folks... Then anyone could play and how inconvient would that be?
