The Supreme Court's War On Democracy?

As I've said many times, I think Buckley vs. Valeo was an awful decision. Money is not speech any more than corporations are persons, and the belief, whether held implicitly or explicitly, that wealth should be the primary determinant of access to the public debate is a pernicious one that any right-thinking advocate of popular government would ridicule. For years I've hoped that Buckley could be overturned, but thanks to the services of Mr. Bush, it looks like it may happen in the most damnably ironic way I can fathom:

Even more significant could be the SpeechNow challenge. In that case, a First Amendment advocacy group dubbed SpeechNow.org argues that it should be allowed to expressly advocate the election or defeat of federal candidates using unregulated money. That means the group would be subject to neither contribution limits nor to the ban on direct corporate and union treasury funding.

"This is a case that is potentially a fundamental challenge to Buckley v. Valeo itself," said former FEC chairman Trevor Potter, at the Brennan Center conference, referring to the landmark 1976 ruling that upheld contribution limits. Potter is president of the Campaign Legal Center and heads the political activity law practice at Caplin & Drysdale.

So now they want to permit unlimited unregulated contributions as well as unlimited spending? Am I reading that right? I'm sorry, but if they're successful we'll have a republic in name only. But of course I suspect that's been their design all along.