laughingchimp:

Exactly - these Republicans on the court think that strinking down campaign finance laws will get their guys back into power. I can't believe Scalia even came out and said that he thought this would favour challengers (ie Republicans). But as much as these guys would love to think that they are omniscient, omnipotent, bad-ass players (crowning a president obviously doesn't do much to tamp down your hubris) - they are dead wrong here. They are going to ensure a long (and deeply corrupt) Democratic one-party rule in America. Corporations have no interest in bribing the loser in an election and right now Democrats happen to be the safe bet. Lucky for them - unlucky for citizens, or should I say government consumers.

Scalia is certainly open to no small degree of criticism, but this is off base. I think Scalia was expressing a general skepticism of incumbents writing the rules that govern how elections will be run -- there should be little doubt that those rules would favor incumbents. That's really one of the core reasons behind the First Amendment: To prevent incumbent politicians to stifle speech critical of their performance. In this case, at least, Republican/Democrat has nothing to do with it. I'm pretty sure Scalia has been a consistent vote against campaign finance reform, even when Republicans were in power.