By now the news may have percolated enough through the media for many Americans to realize that the Supreme Court under the inestimable John Roberts has loosened restrictions on individual campaign contributions. An individual still is limited to $2,600 per candidate ($5,200 total for primary and general elections), but the max (currently at $48,600) has been removed. In other words, someone can spread those packets of $2,600($5200) around to as many candidates as he wishes. But not to worry. Relax, my fellow Americans. Our Solomon of a Chief Justice says that it's all for the good. There isn't even the remotest chance that increasing the influx of money could corrupt the democratic process. No, siree! Justice Roberts and his Conservative brethren have wisdom as infinite as the money-cum-free speech the super-rich and powerful will inseminate into the body politic. In other words, 5-4 calls the shots.
After all, these are the same legal geniuses who gave us 'corporations are people'. Here--- in patented juridical jive--- is Roberts' formidable reasoning:
"They [99% of us] would be delighted to see fewer TV commercials touting a candidate's accomplishments or disparaging an opponent's character....Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the 1st Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades---despite the profound offense such spectacles cause---it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition."
How's that for an valid , tightly-knitted argument by analogy? Somehow, though, I don't think any of those cases ever had the power to run Congress, decide the fate of Social Security, or lead us into war.