The bar for proving corruption us still likely to be pretty high; you'd have to be able to draw a straight line from the donation to the Super PAC to the corrupt action taken by a congressmen. I wouldn't think it would protect against people supporting a candidate who shares their views, which is a larger problem.

I think it would open the doorway to prosecuting "Corporation X donated $5 million to Congressman Y's superpac, and then Congressman Y voted against laws that would impact them negatively." But I don't know if it comes into play if "Congressman Y, always opposed to big government intrusion in corporate affairs, got superpac money from Corporation X who supports his anti regulation views."

Bryant

I'm just trying to figure out how wide a door we can open with this ruling.

Bryant

also start cashing in on the corruption.

The illogic of the CU corrupt judges denying the corrupting influence of money on politics, denying all of human history, was the evil foundation of the whole criminal decision.

it makes prosecutable corruption a smaller (much smaller) subset of actual corruption.

Bryant

donations from certain corporations or individuals could result in corruption charges. That would be a step toward slightly cleaner government. At least it would be something.

It may be that the decision in the Citizens United case was the result of facts that did not involve corruption. It may be that ultimately the Citizens United decision will only apply to situations in which their is no hint of corruption.

It would be hard, for example, to argue that an organization that uses corporate money to help the campaign of a candidate who supports raising taxes on all corporations and no other issue was a corporate bribe. I'm not sure my example works very well, but let's say that a super-pac supports a candidate who is very strong on issues regarding aid to mothers and children. It would be hard to accuse the candidate receiving the super-pac support of personal corruption. Other than winning the election, what benefit could the candidate receive from such a Super-Pac?

I'm opposed to Citizens United, but I can understand how the Court could imagine a situation in which a Super-Pac was not in and of itself a tool of corruption.

On the other hand, in the Menendez case, we may have (and I don't know the facts well enough to say yes or no) a case of corruption in exchange for super-pac donations. The Court could distinguish cases in which corruption is a factor. That would pretty much cause candidates and donors to be very careful about Super-Pac support. And that would be good. Not ideal, but better than the status quo.

Of course, the Court or an appellate could throw this decision out, and a lot of things could happen in the Menendez case as it winds its way through the courts. It's interesting for the moment.

In other news, water is wet and Michael Jackson is still dead.

yet we call this a democracy. Total bullshit, absolutely unmitigated bullshit, the US is not a democracy. Once it was, but no longer. And sadly many in the masses are bred to accept this as status quo.

which has been playing "Thriller" on a continuous loop for 25 years and says, "Michael Jackson is dead?"

But seriously, yes super PAC contributions are bribes. In many if not most cases they also contribute to the salaries of the candidates family and friends that work for the PAC or organizations that do contract work for the PAC.

If a corporation did this for a politician in another country it would most likely be considered a bribe and probably be illegal, why is it legal in this Country?

corporations.

five of them (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy-were law clerks and worked in some dubious republican administrations) said during there confirmation hearings that the laws were already set in precedence.

I know my rant is not related to the current thread, but this U.S, Supreme court is in the back ground on what has and will transpire in this case

This activist court, this republican activist court, is and has been making law against the Constitution now ever since Roberts became the chief justice.

This branch in it's current make-up has ruled over 95% of the time for the rich and very powerful, look no further than how this present right wing court takes a mundane case, to get a ruling unto a bigger issue, and basically telling those that if they can get another case to where we want to get in a ruling we will take it.

Look at who was given the lead on public employees unions in the California case------------------Alito ---------------------I rest my case


This election is about the U.S. Supreme court



Honk--------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

already gone them what is the big thing about electing someone to appoint good people to the SCOTUS.

Or the Judges of Corruption are Corrupt Themselves.

this ruling is saying maybe not.

I could have sworn I saw him working at a 7-Eleven in Kalamazoo last week.

Yes they ARE bribes! Glad someone finally said it! So is the money that comes from lobbying firms and special interest groups.