Supreme Court Revisiting Campaign Finance Reform Laws

This week the Supreme Court will be visiting two campaign finance laws that some see as unconstitutional. One is Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which says corporations can't spend their profits for a candidate’s election or defeat. The other, which is clearly a violation of free speech, is Congress’s Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka McCain-Feingold. Wikipedia: "The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds."

I'm not optimistic that these will get overturned. Stare Decisis — the Court upholding its previous decisions is in play. Plus only three Justices are absolutely for overturning these violations of free speech. The answer to both the questions is of course total transparency. Corporations, like politicians, must post all their political donations.