Did the Supreme Court just open the door to political corruption?

[bemildred]

---

It was not a big surprise that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision today striking down certain limits on federal campaign contributions was divided along partisan lines.

Conservative justices sided with the idea that money equals speech, and that speech should be limited as little as possible. (Justice Clarence Thomas said there should be no limits at all.)

Money, argued the losing liberal minority, drowns out other, equally protected political speech.

The case was brought by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee, who argued that Watergate-era restrictions on aggregate campaign donations were unconstitutional.

http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-supreme-court-strikes-down-campaign-money-limits-20140402,0,3228984.story

[JoePhilly]

1. They took the door off and created a breeze way.

[BarbaRosa]

2. and laid out the red carpet.

[elleng]

3. No, that happened with Citizens United,

if not before that. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. It introduced the idea that money counts as speech, and eliminated any previous restraints on unlimited spending in US election campaigns. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

[Doctor_J]

4. That ship sailed in 2000

we missed our chance by not rolling out the guillotines and rope when Bush v Gore came down. An ounce of prevention right then would have taken a big chunk of the conservative cancer from the US.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. You betcha!

Mr. Moneybags~>