Serwer's case against the Chamber of Commerce :

I'm not on the SCARY FOREIGN MONEY train, but like Antonin frickin' Scalia, I think democracy works best when people are publicly accountable for their political speech, that anonymity under these circumstances undermines civic responsibility, and that the First Amendment protects your freedom to speak and doesn't confer a freedom not to be criticized, particularly if you're an individual with the means to spend millions to swing the outcome of a political contest. Who is saying something, and who is paying them to say it, matters. 

Steinglass pushes back against Wilkinson's defense of foreign money:

While I think it a moral imperative that foreign individuals be allowed to say what they think about American politics, I think congress should be able to regulate whether, say, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company could pour unlimited amounts of money into a non-profit called, say, Seattleites Against Pork that runs television advertisements seeking to unseat congressman Norm Dicks. Purely out of opposition to Mr Dicks's rampant earmarks, of course, and not because he tried to torpedo EADS's bid for a Pentagon aerial refueling tanker in favour of Boeing's. That's the way I generally see corporate funding of independent political communication working on the domestic side, and I don't see why it would be any more salubrious with foreign corporations.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.