Alito vs. Scalia

As I understand it, the two men differ slightly on the campaign finance reform decision that neutered campaign finance reform. Alito thinks it "permissible to require corporations (and unions) to spend money on ads expressly advocating the election or defeat of a federal candidate (or "the functional equivalent of such ads") from a separate political action committee (or PAC) and not from general treasury funds." Scalia wants no restrictions of any sort. He notes, in an oddly Rumsfeldian way, "How will we know that would-be speakers have been chilled and have not spoken? If a tree does not fall in the forest, can we hear the sound it would have made if it had fallen?"

Well, no. But you also can't assume that it didn't fall because of the frickin' PAC rule. Scalia derisively refers to this as the "wait and see" approach. Wait and see we will! And what we will find, no doubt, is that big-moneyed interests will set up PACs and use them to trash candidates up to election day. These ads will run in droves. And though It will be evidence that the conservatives' ruling had its intended effect, I still somehow doubt Scalia will think this is enough leeway for powerful businesses. He's right, there's no way to know if "would-be speakers have been chilled." But if they have been, it's because they've been too feckless to find a podium.