Buying Elections: A Surprising Degree of Candor from Conservapedia

Who’d have thought it?

The Supreme Court Gets Ready To Turn on the Corporate Fundraising Spigot,” and that could spell the end of liberal control of elections.

That’s what we’ve been saying all along – unlimited corporate fundraising distorts the outcome of elections by essentially auctioning them to the most powerful interest groups. It’s a curious pundit that concedes this point while still arguing against campaign finance reform; more curious still when the proponents is a “strict constructionist” who still, somehow, finds the words “corporate money” in the First Amendment’s speech protections. If the First Amendment does protect political contributions as expressive acts, that case is far more nuanced, far more interesting, and far more “activist” (read: countermajoritarian) than the textualist crowd is willing to admit.

That said, it does indeed look like the Supreme Court, upon re-argument, will strike down Congress’ decades old, reasonable, bipartisan limits on corporate funding for politics. See Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990). Roberts hates campaign finance reform, and Scalia and Kennedy voted against the case the first time it came up, making Justices Thomas & Alito swing votes. God help us all.