Competing visions of democracy in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision re: campaign finance laws

The blog Comparative Constitutions has a a good piece comparing the different visions of democracy currently seen in Canada and the United States, particularly in the wake of U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United v. FEC, decided last week.

But if the book left any doubt that the United States Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are anchored in divergent constitutional values, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission should confirm that the United States and Canada orient themselves toward different conceptions of democracy, at least with respect to private expenditures in political elections. Whereas Canada adheres to a model of egalitarianism, the United States appears to adhere to a model that may be best described as libertarian.

Whether this was a good decision or not, it seems the principle of the First Amendment was at least vindicated by this decision. Egalitarianism is nice is theory, but the problem is - who gets to decide on the rules? McCain-Feingold was Congress's attempt to answer that question, and it didn't take long for someone (Citizens United) to have their right of free expression trampled by the Government. No matter what I think of the danger of corporate money flooding elections, this could not have been right.