The big money Roberts Court has been consistent, you have to give them that. E.J. Dionne has piece today in the Washington Post that brilliantly breaks down the Roberts Court cow-towing to corporate interests and big money in our elections.
From the piece, Dionne notes Justice Kagan's spot on dissent: '"For years, opponents of campaign finance reform have accused those who want to repair the system of trying to reduce the amount of political speech. But Arizona’s law, as Kagan pointed out, “subsidizes and so produces more political speech.” And then there was this shot at Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion: “Except in a world gone topsy-turvy, additional campaign speech and electoral competition is not a First Amendment injury.”'
The narrow 5-4 majority that has been the calling card of cases involving campaign finance and corporate interests has repeatedly gone out of their way to support corporate interests, as well as enhance the role of big money in our politics. Monday's decision in McComish v. Bennett was no different. Using the kind of pretzel logic that only a county fair vendor could love, the court ruled that by allowing more money for candidates running for office, speech is somehow depressed.
This particular reasoning aside, the big money Roberts 5 has seemingly made further empowering big money their cause celebre. And with a Congress already all-too-willing to do the bidding of special interests and big donors, it's regular Americans who consistently lose.