Chief Justice Roberts and quid pro quo corruption

A New York Times editorial calls it "insincere naivete," referring to Chief Justice John Roberts' refusal to consider any corrupting influence of unlimited money on our political system short of actual quid quo pro bribery.

This has come up in connection with Thursday's ruling in the McCutcheon case, that further takes limits off political contributions.  You can tell who will likely benefit by who is rejoicing.  RNC chair Reince Priebus is said to be ecstatic.

I hadn't realize there was much room for things to get worse, but apparently this ruling contains loopholes that will allow one person to donate millions that will go to individual candidates through just a little creative channeling through committees.

Personally, I don't think Roberts is naive.   I think he is pro-business and pro-wealthy people.  All this talk about unlimited money being just a form of free speech is shallow rationalization.   The real problem here is that Roberts denies that there are very real consequences that erode our democratic process -- not, as he blithely says, that it is to enhance our democratic process.

The free speech thing is a convenient dodge.  There are precedents everywhere that curtail some rights in order to ensure the honoring of other rights.

In a letter to the New York Times, David Miller wrote with irony:  "The law, in its majestic equality, grants both billionaires and paupers the identical free speech right to influence public policy by spending millions upon millions of dollars."

Another letter from Peter Kugel:  "It seems to me that the Supreme Court's decision is like saying that your freedom of speech allows you to yell as loudly as you wish while I am trying to talk."

This is the direction toward oligarchy;   democracy is losing the battle.    Another legacy of George W. Bush, who solidified the conservative majority of SCOTUS with the Roberts and Alito appointments.

Ralph