The US Senate is already an elite millionaire's club, and the membership of the US House of Representatives is no slouch in that department either.

As more and more political parties expect candidates to fund their own campaigns, the reality is that eventually only millionaires will sit on Capitol Hill, in the White House, and in other elected offices.

For more on the millionaires of Capitol Hill check here.

Campaign finance laws to create a level playing field are non-existent, diluted to ineffectiveness, or a joke, and the right wing, corporatist Supreme Court, led by proto-fascist, corporatist-in-chief, and ethically challenged Bushite, John Roberts, aims to keep  government of, by, and for the wealthy few, with elected officials controlled (bribed) by corporate campaign funds.

Richard Hasen explains at Slate:  "If Republicans were wondering how their 2012 presidential candidate is going to compete against President Obama's $600 million fundraising juggernaut, the Supreme Court seems poised to provide an answer: unlimited corporate spending supporting the Republican candidate, or attacking Obama.

"In a Supreme Court term that has had its share of surprises, the court saved one of the biggest for last. Rather than publish an opinion at the end of the term as expected in an obscure campaign finance case, Citizens United v. FEC, the court issued a rare order for reargument of the case in September (before the usual start of the term). At that point, the court will consider whether to overrule its two previous decisions that in 1990 and 2003 upheld limits on corporate spending in federal elections.

"Given the dynamics of the court, there is a great chance the justices will use the opportunity to overrule limits on how much money corporations can spend supporting candidates—whether or not Judge Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed in time to hear the case in September. In the Voting Rights Act case the court considered last week, the court ducked the constitutional question in favor of narrow statutory interpretation. In contrast, in Citizens United, the court is likely to address the constitutional questions head-on, and the outcome likely will not be good for supporters of reasonable campaign-finance regulation."

Thom Hartmann weighs in at Huffington Post about this fascist Supreme Court machination.

"As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: 'A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.'

"Get ready.

"Last year a right-wing group put together a 90-minute hit-job on Hillary Clinton, and wanted to run it on TV stations in strategic states. The Federal Election Commission ruled that the "documentary" was actually a "campaign ad" and thus fell under the restrictions on campaign spending of McCain-Feingold, and thus stopped it from airing. (Corporate contributions to campaigns have been banned repeatedly and in various ways since 1907 when Teddy Roosevelt pushed through the Tillman Act.)

"Citizens United, the right-wing group, sued the Supreme Court, with right-wing hit man and former Reagan solicitor general Ted Olson as their lead lawyer.

"This new case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, presents the best opportunity for the Roberts Court to use its five vote majority to totally re-write the face of politics in America, rolling us back to the pre-1907 era of the Robber Barons.

"As Jeffrey Toobin wrote in The New Yorker ("No More Mr. Nice Guy"): "In every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."

"And the only way the modern Republican Party can recover their power over the next decade is to immediately clear away all impediments to unrestrained corporate participation in electoral politics. If a corporation likes a politician, they can make sure he or she is elected every time; if they become upset with a politician, they can carpet-bomb her district with a few million dollars worth of ads and politically destroy her.

"And it looks like that's exactly what the Roberts Court is planning. In the Citizens United case, they asked for it to be re-argued in September of this year, going all the way back to the 1980s and re-examining the rationales for Congress to have any power to regulate corporate "free speech."

"As Robert Barnes wrote in The Washington Post on June 30, 2009, "Citizens United's attorney, former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, had told the court that it should use the case to overturn the corporate spending ban the court recognized in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, as well as its decision in 2003 to uphold McCain-Feingold as constitutional."

FearTheReaper's comment on this subject: "You thought our country was for sale now? You haven’t seen anything yet. This is the kind of shit Roberts and Alito were put on the bench for. The religious right were used by Bush to get right leaning judges on the bench – unfortunately, they are not the kind of right leaning judges they were hoping for. These guys are there to do whatever big business wants them to do. Chief Justice Roberts robe should look like a NASCAR driver's suit, covered in sponsors.

"The big surprise came last week, when Roberts saw an opportunity to turn America’s clock back to the good old days, when Carnegie, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller ran the country. Time for the return of the robber barons. The Roberts court didn’t rule on Citizens United v. FEC. Instead, both sides were asked to return in September for a “pre-session hearing on the validity of various electoral laws pertaining to the case.” Uh oh.

"The Supreme Court wants to hear briefs on a case from 20 years ago: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. What’s the big deal about Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce? Not much, except that it set restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations, unions and other organizations. It’s the last thing holding corporations back from completely destroying democracy.

"This is why Roberts and Alito were put on the bench. This is their calling. They showed their hand by clearly going out of their way to ask attorneys in Citizens United vs. FEC to prepare arguments on Austin. It’s the definition of judicial activism, something the right was supposed to be so very opposed to.

"We are about to live in a country where politicians will do whatever corporations want because Chevron or General Electric or Dow Chemical threatened to hand their opponent millions. As if it wasn’t already bad enough with lobbying, now it’s going to be out in the open and there will be nothing we can do to stop it."