http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMxNnJn2oeE

So ya, in case you haven't heard the Supreme Court reviewed a past case and overturned it. In simple terms what happened is simply the fact that they removed the cap on corporations spending on campaign funds.

You see for the longest time [20 years, a shorter span than my age] corporations were allowed to spend only so much money on political candidates. But that law has been thrown out meaning the corporations (which have FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more money then even the average rich person) are allowed to spend that money on campaigning for whatever political candidate they want. Meaning pressure on candidates to pass legislation and do things favorable for the corporation that sponsored them, else they lose that money.

Meaning politicians not being of the people, but being of the people as defined by the corporation. It's about the worst thing that any democracy could face, and in essence has KILLED our democracy since it means if you ever wanted to run for office, especially a high up important one, lest you become a lap dog of a sponsor, your basically going up against what any multibillion dollar corporation decides they care to spend to advertise.

The way I got it, and obviously i'm not alone in the though since president Obama addressed it in his state of the union address. It's not a good thing.
[Somehow group-think shouldn't be a defining factor in whether a decision by the SCOTUS is constitution or not.]

Seeing as how only 54% of the population voted in the last election and seeing how 66% of the youth voted for obama. SO I THINK his campaign targeting the youth went well.
[I'm not sure how this is relevant. Could you expound your reasoning a little more?]

What happens when another candidate gets tons of money because of this whole over ruling? Have you ever interviewed voters? I have. Most of them do buy into the marketing nonsense that airs on tv's and in news papers.
[As much as personal experiences are what everyone judges the world by, I don't believe you've interviewed all the voters in the United States. In essence, your view is a narrow snapshot of the electorate. Have you ever thought both sides might be balanced by the influx of corporate financing?]

It's easier to be told what's going on than to actually figure it out for yourself. So even if there is an instance of one PR disaster it doesn't mean others can't get away with things. At least with the ruling in place before they couldn't garner a lot of money from outside sources and if they did it took more to hide it. Now well they don't have to hide it as much, it's legal and heck they will encourage it
[It's called the Information Age for a reason. People are flocking to alternate media such as blogs and media websites because they ARE willing to find the reasons behind why things happen or what another interpretation might reveal. Transparency would work better in showing who gives how much to whom, rather than trampling on constitutional rights merely because you might not like the message.]

You can tag on the first amendment rights to anything. Hell my first admentment rights are being taken away when I am not allowed to download music or movies because I interpret them and write papers or poems to them. Tadad 1st amendment rights tagged on to something that isn't right.
[While interpretation does differ on amendments, I'm not sure how you believe your amendments rights are being removed because of being banned from access to online files. Are these copyrighted?]

What i'm gathering from this is you'd rather have someone who gets lots of money and so they have better marketing which leads to well better "sells" or votes in this case. Meaning they would be able to lead our country because they had the money too. That's like saying little timmy at the orphanage has less of a right to become president than Little Greggory who lives in the mansion on the hill because his daddy knows more people and has more money.
[Citizens are able to market to their preferred candidate (see previous Massachusetts example to refute your statement). From what your posting, I assume you didn't read any of the articles I gave as examples which refuted the idea of the country being led by only a privileged few.]

It goes from who has the qualities to who has the most money. Free speech all you want the founding fathers didn't want a country based on the hierarchy of classes. They didn't want the rich leading the poor that's why they created the whole democracy thing in the first place! So everyone has an equal opportunity to lead and vote for who they feel.
[In your definition, 'everyone' would include only those people you would choose. The law which was found unconstitutional banned people from expressing their views through the means and time of their choosing. Now truly everyone does have an opportunity to express their opinion. Your definition of 'equal' is an equality of outcome, but not of merit.]

I just think the flood gates have been opened and we're gonna be dealing with a bunch of nonsense now because someone has more money/connections than others. :/
[I believe nonsense never really leaves, and from your paragraphs above you noted the corporations would need to hide to show their support. How nonsensical is it to propose backroom dealing?

I honestly don't want to refute your statements because I believe you'll just put in more of your own opinions of what I said, twisting it more so than you have already. IE you seem to be arguing to argue. :/