Somehow I just can't see then objecting to Taft-Hartley which curtailed the influence of liberal unions the same way they get so worked up against McCain-Feingold. The laws should be consistent and if McCain-Feingold is a violation of the First Ammendment, so are all the others listed above, can't just pick and choose whichever ones don't favor your particular group.

The back and forth argument about regulations is becoming as nonsensical as the forever argument about the size and role of government. People at the extremes argue by pointing out the worst results of the other extreme. It's the politics of fear all over again, and it lacks any real substance between the extremes. .
It's an intellectually illegimate and pointless method of argument.

I'm with Goldilocks here. I don't want the bowl that's too big, nor the one that's too small. I'm looking for the bowl that's just big enough to accomodate my meal, but not so big that I'll choke by eating the contents.

Neutralizing the moneyed interests, so that we can have a rational, honest evaluation of the patriculars of any legislation concerning financing, regualtions, government or anything else is the only way that I can see to break the stranglehold -and go on dealing with the stuff that affects our lives.