One of their most egregious decisions was the one where they said basically that money was free speech. But as Springsteen guitarist Steven Van Zandt, maybe one of the smartest musicians I’ve heard, pointed out in a Huffington post,
You might wonder why no one in that smart room stood up and said wait a minute, if money is speech, isn’t lack of money lack of speech?
You know, as in the rich get to talk, and the poor don’t? How are the non-moneyed classes represented by this decision?
Nowhere in the Constitution did the founders tie money to free speech. Yet the conservatives want to talk about liberal activist judges.
Now a congressman has stood up to the activist conservative judges on the Supreme Court. Bernie Sanders said the following.
I strongly disagree with the ruling. In my view, a corporation is not a person. A corporation does not have First Amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign.
Corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.
The ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy. It has further tilted the balance of the power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when the wealthiest people in this country already never had it so good. History will record that the  Citizens United decision is one of the worst in the history of our country.
I agree with Bernie and Steven. Money is not free speech and sorry Mitt, corporations are not people. They are made up of people who have no responsibly to Americans what so ever, only to their shareholders. That’s a lousy way to run a government and the Supreme Court should have realized that.
Sanders has called for a constitutional amendment to overturn this abuse of money as free speech.
I’m sure Republicans will come after him because he is an avowed socialist Democrat. But if you really look at the true meaning of socialism, it just means doing what is best for the community. Certainly the current conservative led U.S. Supreme Court has not grasped that concept. What part of “We the people,” not some of the people, does the court not understand?