The dissent in McCutcheon

Here is the Supreme Corp's decision. The dissent starts on p. 54 of the document. A few excerpts follow:

"Today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy" (2).

 Unlimited contributions do not create corruption because the plurality defines the  term as "a direct exchange of an official act for money," aka bribery. The do not consider that "efforts to garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected offi­cials or political parties” is corruption (4). Seriously?

"In reality, as the history of campaign finance reform shows and as our earlier cases on the subject have recognized, the anticorruption interest that drives Congress to regulate campaign contributions is a far broader, more important interest than the plurality acknowledges. It is an interest in maintaining the integrity of our public governmental institutions. And it is an interest rooted in the Constitution and in the First Amendment itself" (4).


"Corruption breaks the constitution­ally necessary 'chain of communication' between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard" (6).

And here's the real reason why the regressives did this: They want us to feel politically impotent and give up participating in the process so that the oligarchs can just get on with the business of enslaving us:

"The 'appearance of corruption' can make matters worse. It can lead the public to believe that its efforts to communicate with its representatives or to help sway public opinion have little purpose. And a cynical public can lose interest in political participation altogether" (7).