A sickening passage from Roberts’ opinion:

[ewagner]

25. I think you're onto something here...

What the Roberts Court is not taking into consideration is that the present and future receipt of money is in direct conflict with the confidence the public must have that the elected official can in fact make an independent judgment in office if the ability to raise money to maintain that office is jeopardized . In a sense the conflict of interest has already occurred when the first dollars are accepted. There need not be the higher standard applied of “quid pro quo” but instead, a lower bar of corruption needs to be put in place, e.g. impropriety or the appearance of impropriety. The impropriety is that the elected official puts his continued tenure in office above the ability to objectively serve the interests of the public. Hence, there is a conflict of personal interest (his own re-election) with the interest of the public to have fair, objective representation.