For me the important issue in this election is the Supreme Court . I remember when the phrase "money talks" was used pejoratively, castigating the flow of money into politicians hands. With the Citizens United decision, "money talks" is now a respected principle of law, along with a prior decision that corporations are persons protected by the free speech amendment permitting donations to political parties by way of commercials declared independent of the candidate.

.That’s one question that John Coates, a professor at Harvard Law School and a former corporate lawyer, explores in a recent survey of what he calls “the corporate takeover of the First Amendment.” According to Coates, companies are now the beneficiaries of cases involving the First Amendment just as often as individuals, and the frequency of those cases has been rising since the mid-70s. This represents a troubling appropriation of the law: “Power is taken from ordinary individuals with identities and interests as voters, owners, and employees, and transferred to corporate bureaucrats pursuing narrowly framed goals with other people’s money,” Coates writes.

As much fault as I can find with the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, and they are many, she gets my vote because of the Supreme court appointments which are sure to occur in the next four to eight years.

The presidency affects our lives for possibly eight lives. Supreme Court appointments affect them for decades. Aside from Citizens United, I want a Supreme court that recognizes that we are a nation of 325 million people, living in an information age, not 13 colonies of farmers and small town crafts and tradesmen with few who were not self-sufficient.