To someone like me, unburdened by a legal education, the decision of the Supreme Court in the McCutcheon case is as odd as the notion that the Constitution confuses speech and expression with spending lots of money. The framers could have said that Congress shall make no law abridging the right of oligarchs to pour money into political campaigns. Instead, they wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where are the originalists when you need them? No one is saying that rich guys can't write op-eds railing against the "death tax." That would violate the First Amendment. Hell, Rush Limbaugh is trumpeting his idiocy from sea to shining sea, and who says he can't? He can express his views, and those of us in the reality-based community can suggest that his political opinions are of a piece with the juicy boils that evidently adorn his ass.
Congress, however, having heard from petitioning citizens seeking redress of their grievances, has passed laws that keep rich guys from donating unspeakable sums to an array of candidates, then inviting them over for cocktails before the big vote. If they say their constitutional rights are being trampled, I say buy your own effing media company and say what's on your mind. People who can afford anything are frustrated when some things aren't for sale. It doesn't follow that eveything should be for sale.
I would think that I am just innocent but there are four lawyers on the Supreme Court who seem to see it my way. (I see that three of them are the women on the high court, which reminds me that, except on the allure of ice dancing, I always side with the chicks.) The decision of the majority, written by Chief Justice Roberts, doesn't at all persuade me. Here he is, in full stride:
Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties. And because the Government’s interest in preventing the appearance of corruption is equally confined to the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, the Government may not seek to limit the appearance of mere influence or access.
Let me translate. Blatant corruption in the form of tit-for-tat payoffs, which some people call bribery, is out of bounds. Luckily, it's hard to prove that an office-holder voted a certain way because he was paid off. It could be that, on the merits, he just happens to agree with rich guys who gave him a ton of dough. So, have at it!
