Is the SCOTUS ruling a valid defense for bribery?

Let's say someone were charged with bribing an official.

Could he claim that his exchange of money has to be regarded as an exchange of speech?

As things stand now, I don't think politicians can get in trouble for receiving money as long as it's reported and the IRS knows about it. I don't think that briefcases full of cash are considered proper, however.

This case did not affect contributions to candidates themselves. The rules on that are just as they have been.

So I think the answer is a resounding "YES"

the scotus ruling does not lift limits on GIVING TO OFFICIALs

it lifts limits on spending for ADS and such.

the limits for giving to individuals are the same as before.

of Commerce. If they didn't want to bribe congress why did the Chamber of Congress bring this lawsuit.

And remember when the Discovery Channel had a program describing all the stuff bush and his family were in to, very unflattering. Well the US Chamber of Congress caused them to pull it. But then then wanted to run a program very unflattering to Hillary Clinton right in the middle of her campaign. And the Chamber of Congress defended it. So this is what we are going to get. Lawsuits to prevent anything unflattering about a republican but all the money in the world to dis and slander a democrat.

No matter how they word it, people should look for the lies and sue for slander. Because once it is in writing or a video then can't change it and it is slander. THEY HAVE TO HAVE CONCRETE PROOF OF WHAT THEY SAY.

Also, the coorporatiosn are giving them money. They can not make unlimited donations to campaigns or parites. What they can do is to make their own commericals.

So, no, it wouldn't be bribery under any statute.