Text of Justice Breyer's blistering dissent

[markpkessinger]

I have extracted Justice Breyer's dissent from the decision and have made it available on my Google drive, for anyone who might be interested in reading it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5nYovU90WRmX2NJMG1IYjZ5VFk/edit?usp=sharing

[elleng]

1. Thanks. Excerpts:

'Its conclusion rests upon its own, not a

record-based, view of the facts. Its legal analysis is faulty:

It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional

interests at stake. It understates the importance of pro­

tecting the political integrity of our governmental insti-

tutions. It creates a loophole that will allow a single

individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party

or to a candidate’s campaign. Taken together with Citi-
zens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310

(2010), today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign

finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with

the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those

laws were intended to resolve. . .

The plurality’s conclusion rests upon three separate but

related claims. Each is fatally flawed.'

[longship]

2. This really lays out the corrupting influence of this decision.

It is not merely quid pro quo. It goes much further, and is much more pernicious.

Recommended read. Sorry. Cannot copy and paste excerpts from a PDF on an iPhone. I am sure others will be able to provide them in the coming days.

This is an absolutely horrible decision by the court, which this dissent clearly explains.

[Laelth]

3. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[handmade34]

4. K&R n/t

[lovemydog]

5. Thank you marpkessingler

May we link to it on facebook?

[markpkessinger]

7. Sure . . .

. . . I shared it publicly, so by all means share it!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

6. also k n r for visibility. n/t

[burrowowl]

8. Thank you! K&R

[dgauss]

9. What I get from this is that the majority opinion rests

on a ridiculously limited definition of "corruption" that rests on a narrow definition of of "quid pro quo."

That's how they justify this. "Can you prove that a specific exchange took place where money changed hands to buy a particular vote or favor?" If not there is no corruption.

So I'm not a lawyer but in my opinion Breyer, with the aid of basic rationality and judicial precedence, destroys the majority argument. Too bad about the five ideologues.

I hope people on this board who actually have legal knowledge comment on this decision.

[pacalo]

10. I'm on page 6 now...

This critically important definition of "corruption" is inconsistent with the Court's prior case law (with the possible exception of Citizens United, as I will explain below). It is virtually impossible to reconcile with this Court's decision in McConnell, upholding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). And it misunderstands the constitutional importance of the interests at state. In fact, constitutional interests -- indeed, First Amendment interests -- lie on both sides of the equation.

In reality, as the history of campaign finance reform shows and as our earlier cases on the subject have recognized, the anticorruption interest that drives Congress to regulate campaign contributions is a far broader, more important interest than the plurality acknowledges. It is an interest in maintaining the integrity of our public governmental institutions. And it is an interest rooted in the Constitution and in the First Amendment itself.

Consider at least one reason why the First Amendment protects political speech. Speech does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, political communication seeks to secure government action. A politically oriented "marketplace of ideas" seeks to form a public opinion that can and will influence elected representatives.

It's getting really good...

Thanks for posting, mark.

[lovemydog]

11. From NY Times Editorial Board:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued its crusade to knock down all barriers to the distorting power of money on American elections. In the court’s most significant campaign-finance ruling since Citizens United in 2010, five justices voted to eliminate sensible and long-established contribution limits to federal political campaigns. Listening to their reasoning, one could almost imagine that the case was simply about the freedom of speech in the context of elections.

“There is no right more basic in our democracy,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote in the opening of his opinion for the court in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, “than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.”

But make no mistake, like other rulings by the Roberts court that have chipped away at campaign-finance regulations in recent years, the McCutcheon decision is less about free speech than about giving those few people with the most money the loudest voice in politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/the-court-follows-the-money.html?smid=fb-share