from federal politics all the way down to the mayoral candidates of large cities, one of, if not the first question each potential candidate is asked by their prospective party is: "can you raise money?".
unrestricted giving(i know, i know) allows a billionaire to say "i will give [$$$] to any person running in [... district] who supports my stance on [issue]." if the dollar amount is big enough(not a high bar in non-presi elections), that person will essentially have purchased both sides of the aisle, which means that the voter's choice in an issue has been headed off long before they ever had say. of course a lot of this goes on already, but it will get worse with this ruling. people aren't going to take the lack of having a choice in the matter forever. they'll grow apathetic until it's too much to bear and then they'll riot like it's 1968.
one of the phrases that gets a lot of use in 1st amendment cases is "... to foster the free market of ideas" yet here we are in 2014 staring down an election race that pits Bush vs Clinton. i don't see how you could be happy about this prospect and this ruling unless you're thrilled with america's current ability to attack and solve the big problems.
