The Supreme Court has legalized bribery

by Ian Millhiser 

"Money controls Washington," according to Vance McAllister (r-LA), who also told an audience of Louisiana accountants that Congress is caught in a "steady cycle of voting for fundraising and money instead of voting for what is right."
McAllister's comments won't come as much of a surprise to most Americans who do not wear black robes and work at a marble palace across the street from the U.S. Capitol, but there are five unusually powerful individuals who will probably find them baffling. In a pair of Supreme Court decisions - Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC - the five wingnut justices dismantled most of America's campaign finance regulation. Citizens United permits corporations to spend unlimited money influencing election, so long as that money is funneled through non-campaign groups such as Super PACs (it also paved the road for the creation of Super PACs and similar groups). McCutcheon legalized various money laundering schemes permitting high-dollar donors to funnel seven-figure donations to contested races.
The rationale of both decisions is that the Constitution only permits campaign finance regulation that targets a very narrowly defined form of corruption. "The fact that [donors] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt," according to Citizens United. Nevertheless, Citizens United and McCutcheon do permit campaign finance regulation that "target[s] what we have called 'quid pro quo' corruption or its appearance." That is, the law is powerless against corrupt lawmakers who trade money for access, but it can punish those corrupt individuals who exchange "dollars for political favors."
Which is why McAllister's statement - a statement he is probably only comfortable making because he is retiring from Congress due to a sex scandal - is so significant. The congressman isn't describing a Washington where lawmakers merely spend extra time with their wealthiest donors - a situation that the Roberts Court somehow does not find problematic - he describes a Washington where lawmakers are trapped in a "steady cycle of voting for fundraising." They are actually casting votes for the very purpose of attracting donors. This comes very close to the kind of "dollars for political favors" that even this Supreme Court claims to find objectionable.

This repugican Demolishes The Supreme Court's Rationale For Killing Campaign Finance Laws