Supreme Court: Politicians Can Now Be Totally Bought By the Rich

The rationale behind campaign finance laws has always been to stem government corruption with a view that if the wealthy or corporations could give unlimited funds to candidates running for office it ultimately was no different than bribing them once they were in office.  Sadly, a majority on the United States Supreme Court apparently has no problem with politicians literally being for sale to the highest bidder and bribes contributions made before they are elected somehow do not matter.  Or at least that is the only conclusion to be reached from yesterday's ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission limiting what can be considered bribes under any rational basis is a "unconstitutional" restriction on free speech.  Anyone who doesn't believe there is a direct "quid pro quo" for huge campaign contributions is living in a fantasy world.  The Washington Post looks at this devastating ruling which will likely spur the nation on towards a return to the worst aspects of the Gilded Age.  Here are editorial highlights:

THE SUPREME Court on Wednesday overturned yet another federal law meant to check corruption and influence-peddling in national politics. The ruling shows two things: The Roberts Court’s destructive view on these matters wasn’t changed by the backlash to its Citizens United holding, and Congress must respond by designing new rules that can pass the court’s overly skeptical review. If lawmakers tackle the issue forthrightly, they have some workable options.

The court eliminated an overall limit on how much donors could give to candidates, parties and various other committees over the course of an election cycle. The idea had been to make it harder for big donors to circumvent limits on direct donations to candidates by siphoning them through other channels, or for political leaders to ask for large checks from wealthy individuals.

In the plurality opinion in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. held that the overall donation ceiling is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech because the government can regulate political giving only in order to prevent “quid pro quo corruption,” which is something like direct bribery. The chief justice insisted that combating the purchase of political influence and access is not a sufficiently worthwhile goal. Elsewhere, and without really owning up to it, he overturned a previous court holding in Buckley v. Valeo , the controlling precedent on the constitutionality of campaign finance limits. So much for the judicial restraint that Justice Roberts once promised. 

Individuals, corporations and unions could spend vast amounts of money to manipulate federal elections, sometimes secretly, under fig-leaf restrictions that hardly reduce the potential for corruption or the appearance of it.  

There is one particularly productive response to the Roberts Court that lawmakers should be able to enact immediately: requiring more prompt reporting about where political cash is coming from and where it is going. Americans would be able to evaluate the interests behind the candidates competing for their votes, and members of the court have repeatedly said that new transparency rules would promote accountability and fight corruption without impermissibly infringing on free speech. 

Too bad, then, that Republicans have lately opposed this common-sense reform.

Expect things in the political realm to get much worse.  We will now have the best government one can buy.  The Koch brothers must be celebrating.