Hi Mr. Insurance! How're they hanging Ms. Gee-em? Nice day for all you guys, isn't it Mr. Bigoil? In a miracle worthy of the loaves and fishes, you have been conferred Humanity. The Supreme Court worked this amazing tour-de-force, and so you now have the right to free speech (denied, by the way, to former convicts, and you've all been convicted of a few felonies in the past, but who's looking) and as such, you can vote. With your money. Is this a great country or what?

Seriously folks, did five out of the nine justices have a simultaneous senior moment? Was there no one on that bench willing to tackle Anthony Kennedy, drag him to the men's room and tell him, "Hey, Kenny, this is a really bad idea! In fact, this is the worst idea you guys have had since Bush vs. Gore!"

Guess not.

So what does this all mean? For one, the monstrously large insurance companies will be able to spend boundless funds to promote and elect the likes of Joe Lieberman, who will, in turn, continue to whittle away at health care reform. It means hard-won environmental measures will be rolled back. It means Wall Street and the big banks will have a much easier time going back to the behavior of yore, which caused the mess we're in. It means the country will be ruled as a plutocracy, where power is provided by wealth.

Personally, this scares the hell out of me. Plutocrats like war--it's great for business. They generally also like the status quo that has enabled them to remain plutocrats.

MoveOn.org believes only a constitutional amendment reversing the Supremes' decision can save us now. I'd like to suggest an amendment too. Mine is simple, it would read that if you are a citizen of the United States, you are not required to vote but you are required to show up at the polls and declare your non-voting statues. That's all.

This nation has one of the lowest voter turn-out rates in the world. I would contend bringing people to the polls will tempt them to vote. And I would bet that most Americans will not be that thrilled to see the plutocrats filling their pockets. They might even vote against them.

OK, it's not a perfect solution, but it's a hell of a lot better than destroying two decades of laws that attempted to make elections fair and transparent, which is what the Supreme Court did last week.

It's my opinion, and I share it.