Long Time No Post

So, McCutcheon v. FEC further opens the flood gates to money in election campaigns, squelching the voices of ordinary voters in favor of the exceptionally rich.

The problem, as I see it, is that judges and justices employ shorthand in their thinking, e.g., money=speech,", "corporations=people," the shorthand gets embedded, and then the courts forget that this was, originally, just an analogy.

Beyond that, what I have seen of Roberts' opinion makes no sense. How can government NOT have an interest in precluding the purchase of access to decision-makers? Justice Breyer's dissent is spot on: "It is an interest in maintaining the integrity of our public governmental institutions. Where enough money calls the tune the general public will not be heard."

I saw a lot of government corruption in my past career, much of it grounded in people buying special access to politicians. This decision just facilitates that.

I want all the big money out. It corrupts, plain and simple.