A sickening passage from Roberts’ opinion: [View all]

[kpete]

How is this different from a “quid pro quo” arrangement, which Roberts claims is still forbidden?

In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit political speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.

Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/04/02/highlights-from-the-supreme-courts-campaign-finance-ruling/
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/04/02/slouching-toward-plutocracy/#comments