In reading the OP and skimming the thread, I may have missed the incredible relevance of Slate and Mother Jones. I did, however, note earlier the interesting New Yorker article cited in the OP. The one titled “The Supreme Court Gets Ready to Legalize Corruption”. The one written by Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer at the New Yorker and a senior analyst for CNN.
Now I am not myself any sort of legal scholar, but I can make reasonable judgments about the relative credibility of the sources of different perspectives.
And Toobin’s reputation speaks for itself, and his analysis certainly makes intuitive sense. When he says “First the case turned the law of campaign finance into a useless corpse. Now it appears the law of political bribery is the next victim. Citizens United let rich people buy candidates; now they may be able to purchase office-holders, too” I am reminded of some of the commentary from the esteemed Supreme Court regarding the CU case. The idea the “money is speech” finds a natural extension into shoehorning the First Amendment into support of bribery for the moneyed interests. That song was sung in five-part harmony in the Citizens United ruling, with the venerable departed Scalia carrying a powerful solo. John Roberts’ darkly comical claim that he sees no evidence for “the corrupting influence of money in politics” lends an almost other-worldly Satanic sheen to the proceedings.
So I don’t know who to believe. You, a known right-wing flake, or Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer at the New Yorker, a senior analyst for CNN for a decade and a half, and the author of five books and recipient of awards for journalistic excellence from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University.
