In the last of four posts on Citizens United at the excellent new SCOTUSReports blog (Federalist society), John McGinnis wrestles with claims of inequality stemming from the CU Revolution:

If we are concerned about inequality at election time, we should not restrict anyone’s speech but instead enable more speech by people of modest means. We could give a refundable tax credit of a few hundred dollars for contributions to candidates by people who earn less than $100,000. This policy would allow more voices to be heard, as different kinds of candidates might take advantage of the credit. Most important, it would lead to more information at elections, not less. In an era where accelerating technology may raise all kinds of dangers, we need a better informed citizenry and a world more open to political as well as technological innovation. That is what freedom has brought in the past and can still bring today.

I have a lot of sympathy with the tax credit approach—though I prefer campaign finance vouchers for a variety of reasons. But I wonder whether the Supreme Court which decided the Arizona Free Enterprise Club case would accept a tax credit for political speech going only to those making under $100,000 per year.  I think not.