Political money spigot opened more

Evisceration is what Justice Stephen G. Breyer called it. Breyer was being too kind.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Wednesday added to the obscenity of the court's 2010 Citizens United decision -- also on a 5-4 vote -- by expanding even more the influence of the moneyed few on the American political process.
In latest assault, the court freed wealthy donors to give even more money to congressional candidates. In doing so, the court's conservative bloc struck down Watergate-era aggregate limits barring political donors from giving more than $123,000 a year in total to candidates for federal seats in the House and Senate.
As in the Citizens United ruling, the court's conservative majority shrouded its decision in the McCutcheon case language of First Amendment protections.
“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the 1st Amendment protects,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in his majority ruling. If it protects “flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”
That rationale gives the non sequitur a bad name.
For now, donors must still follow rules that prevent them from giving more than $2,600 per election per candidate. For now. But the court's trajectory is clear. Any doubts about that were removed by Roberts.
“We have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others,” Roberts wrote.
Of course, the effect of McCutcheon is to enhance the influence of the moneyed few over the majority of Americans. And it's not like the moneyed don't already have elected officials on their speed dial list.
If a case comes to the court challenging even the $2,600 limit, a safe bet would be for it to be upheld as this court moves the country ever closer to a plutocracy. Justice Clarence Thomas would like to help it along even more. In his concurring McCutcheon opinion, he said he would end other campaign limits as well.
At some point you have to ask how much is enough? During 2011 and 2012, the Federal Election Commission said, federal candidates, parties and committees reported raising and spending more than $7 billion.
Reaching that level was aided in no small part by the 2010 Citizens United ruling that opened the spigot for campaign spending by corporations and labor unions. McCutcheon opens that faucet even more.
Thirty-eight years ago, in the wake of the Watergate scandal that ended the Nixon presidency in an era of political reform, the high court enunciated the difference between campaign donations and spending in the Buckley v. Valeo case. Spending, the court say, was tantamount to political speech and speech deserves greater First Amendment protection. Donations, on the other hand, were deemed potentially corrupting and therefore subject to regulations.No more. Not with this court. And that's the real corruption.  

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/02/6288978/supreme-court-strikes-down-aggregate.html#storylink=cpy