John Roberts Shreds Another Campaign Finance Law Individuals May Now Shower Gold on Pols

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/chief-justice-john-roberts-shreds-another-campaign-finance-law-individuals-may



***SNIP


The legal basis for upholding campaign finance regulations is to prevent corruption, the Supreme Court ruled in 1976. But the Roberts Court, as was the case in Citizens United, chose to define corruption as a quid pro quo activity—like a bribe, which is already illegal—and turned a blind eye to what anybody who has worked in politics knows: that spending large sums of money on someone’s agenda or election does not come without some strings attached or expectation of future benefit.

Roberts wrote:

Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties.

This twisted legal logic was then used by Roberts to create a narrow rationale allowing the Court’s conservative majority to throw out the contribution caps.

The Government argues that the aggregate [contribution] limits further the permissible objective of preventing quid pro quo corruption. The difficulty is that once the aggregate limits kick in, they ban all contributions of any amount, even though Congress’s selection of a base limit indicates its belief that contributions beneath that amount do not create a cognizable risk of corruption. The Government must thus defend the aggregate limits by demonstrating that they prevent circumvention of the base limits, a function they do not serve in any meaningful way.

Roberts then tossed the ball back to Congress, asserting that while this part of its 2002 law was unconstitutional, Congress could try again to write better rules.

There are multiple alternatives available to Congress that would serve the Government’s interest in preventing circumvention while avoiding “unnecessary abridgment” of First Amendment rights. Such alternatives might include targeted restrictions on transfers among candidates and political committees, or tighter earmarking rules.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Bros can make it rain on any damn republican they want now...

[joeglow3]

2. Not really

They are still limited to what they can give to an individual candidate. However, they CAN now give that limit to every single candidate running for any office.

[CanonRay]

3. Worst Supreme Court since Taney

Will Roberts be remembered for this as much as Taney for Dred Scott? Roberts also has the lunatic Citizens United decision to his "credit" so I say he will be vilified by history, if there is any history.