A sickening passage from Roberts’ opinion:

[Jack Rabbit]

30. I've got a reading of the "appearance of a quid pro quo"

If a corporation (or even a real person) gives a candidate for Congress a shitload of money and, once elected, that candidates scores 100% on the industry's PAC's political scorecard, that is te appearance of a quid pro quo.

The Court's majority has held here and in Citizens United that large amounts of money does not necessarily influence a politician. I do not believe the five justices who wrote these decisions are that naive. I think they are that crooked.

Large campaign contributions, like the ones were going to see in the coming election, should be assumed to be bribes and intended that way. If anything, the campaign finance reform that this court habitually strikes down were always way too lax. The decisions of the Court's majority -- each of whom was appointed by a crooked president named Bush -- are little more than a sale announcement for the people's government to the highest bidder.