And that was Justice Kennedy's sweeping proclamation that unlimited campaign contributions cannot create the quid pro quo and appearance of corruption that campaign finance restrictions had been intended to prevent.
That was, to be blunt, an assertion unsupported by evidence, and the decision rests so heavily upon that assertion for its logical validity (recognizing here that the Supreme Court is allowed to effectively pull legal validity out of its ass).
Now, the wealthy are permitted to openly bribe politicians under the guise of "campaign contributions" and related super PACS, and are nigh untouchable. It is nearly impossible to prosecute corruption anymore, unless the politicians and purchasers thereof involved are EXCEEDINGLY stupid and self-incriminating.
Even the First Amendment is not absolute; perhaps at the time the decision was made the campaign finance laws at question could not pass the applicable standard of strict scrutiny. But if the SCOTUS had an opportunity to revisit the decision, and looked objectively at how much easier it has become for corruption to control the political process (especially should Bernie lose the nomination), some kinds of restrictions to tamp down brazen buying of legislative favors and allow the People to not have their voice suffocated by lobbyist money might be able to pass strict scrutiny now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
