With its emphasis on “forbidden” theories and “impermissible” rationales, the McCutcheon plaintiffs accurately describe the state of the Supreme Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence. (See Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 909 (2010). Government interest in regulating political contributions is limited to quid pro quo corruption; “Ingratiation and access…are not corruption.” Also, see Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806, 2825 (2011). “We have repeatedly rejected the argument that the government has a compelling state interest in ‘leveling the playing field’…”.)
Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.
Montana’s experience, like considerable evidence elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.
(American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, Slip op. at 2 - Breyer, J. dissenting)