You can just outright read the decision if you want.  It's available somewhere. 

I read it... that's more or less it.  Well that and it mentions how essentially making it legal more or less makes it legal to censor the press as well consitutionally.

It's all very well founded and reasoned.  No reason to actually get upset over it.

Rest assured, I intend to read it. Although, being a Supreme Court decision, it's probablyy 100+ pages long...

And I heartily disagree. Seeing as how I have to actually live in this country, I do indeed see reason to get upset over it. It's rather important.

183.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

The question is... why?

Like, in what way could you actually disagree that they got it wrong.  The whole basis of the first ammendment is to protect all speech.

If it's your problem that people in companies have legal protections but are still allowed free speech through their corporations... your problem would be with governments giving people such protections.  The supreme court is meant to arrive to the correct decision.  Not a popular one or one that covers for other laws one might consider stupid.

Though in my opinion that would be a stupid complaint to levy, espiecally when you consider the fact that political sceince research on campaign funded is divided into two camps.  

A) Excessive Campaign funding follows popularity, not vice versa, so increased funding actually follows a candidates chance of winning.

B) Excessive Campaign funding only helps the challenger, and does not completely outweight the incumbant advantage.

Or to quote it directly.

"The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in politicalspeech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Gov-ernment to ban political speech because the speaker is an associationwith a corporate form. Political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speechcomes from a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 777 (footnote omitted). This protection is inconsistent with Austin’s rationale, which is meant to prevent corporations from obtaining “ ‘an unfair advantage in the political marketplace’ ” by using “ ‘resources amassed in the economic marketplace.’ ” 494 U. S., at 659. First Amendment protec-tions do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Buckley, supra, at 49. These conclusions were re-affirmed when the Court invalidated a BCRA provision that in-creased the cap on contributions to one candidate if the opponent made certain expenditures from personal funds. Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U. S. ___, ___. Distinguishing wealthy indi-viduals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, in-cluding individuals and the media, use money amassed from the eco-nomic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations.Al-though currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth withthe help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth,and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’ssupport” for those views. Differential treatment of media corpora-tions and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amend-ment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corpora-tions’ political speech  "

Now THAT would of been troubleing.

I would say right now the most likely candidate for a 28th amendment would be an amendment overturning Citizen's United.

If that's actually the case it would just show how overblown complaints about Citizen's United is.  Since if it was an actual problem you would expect politicians would never allow such a bill to leave congress, let alone be adopted by the states.   Personally, I think democrats like the spectre of "evil republican money" knowing that it really doesn't do much, if anything.

Personally, I'd put "Abolish the electoral college" at number 1.

If Obama pulls off a win but loses the popular vote, both parties will have been bitten within recent history and the general public will be angry.

Meanwhile, most states would likely be willing to adopt this since only 5-7 states benefit anyway.

Does that then mark the end of the primary system as we know it?  Definitely see the prospects of candidates only going around to major states at this point.  Very likely the two major parties won't like this, because the like the idea of only having a few battlegrounds to battle over.

But, as it is now also, the approach is for the two parties to not agree on anything.

Primaries would still happen.  To get rid of them would screw with the main parties.

While the national parties wouldn't like it... i feel like the state parties would, therefore such an ammendment could pass... and another vote/electoral mistake would cause real outrage.