Adam Bonin, an election law expert, Philadelpia resident, and supporter of Clean Elections writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the iniquities our big donor-dependent campaign finance system creates and how the recent spate of rulings by the Supreme Court are short-sighted and threaten valuable laws that curtail big money's influence

Eliza Newlin Carney at the National Journal gets opinions from around the campaign finance reform community about what effect the recent Supreme Court rulings on political advertising and the Millionaire's Amendment will have on other types of campaign finance laws. While the general view is that it will have negative consequences for many types of regulatory laws, the news is not all bad for public financing programs.

Jeff Milchen of Reclaim Democracy attacks the foundations of both the Buckley v. Valeo decision, and the most recent ruling from the Supreme Court building on the Buckley precedent in this op-ed for the Baltimore Sun that makes a compelling argument about the dangers of protecting money's "speech" role in elections ahead of actual speech.

Analysis is trickling in about the impact the Supreme Court's recent decision on the Millionaire's Amendment will have on the "rescue funds" provision of existing and future Clean Elections laws.

Big news from the Supreme Court yesterday which decided on a 5-4 vote to loosen certain regulations established under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, better known as the McCain-Feingold Act) to allow corporations and unions to air ads that mention a candidate's name right up to election day.It likely means a larger influx of money from groups that traditionally run these ads, perhaps leading to a more expensive election cycle.

A portion of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act may be imperiled; the Supreme Court is set to rule soon on whether the provision forbidding "issue ads" within a certain date of an election will be overturned.