“This deeply flawed Supreme Court decision continues down a path that equates money with speech and corporations with people.”
Thus did New Mexico’s United States Sen. Martin Heinrich’s react to the high court’s McCutcheon v. FEC 5-4 decision earlier this month that pounded another nail in the coffin of this nation’s campaign finance reform laws.
Taken in tandem with the court’s 2010 ruling Citizens United (also by a 5-4 decision), practically all significant laws passed in recent years calculated to rein in the billion dollar orgy of campaign money with which corporations and big moneyed interests contrive to buy and sell influence in Congress and state Houses across the land are kaput.
As presently composed, five of the nine members of whom the Supreme Court consists are rigidly conservative, as that term is generally construed today. That same group of five justices is routinely activist, bent on interpreting the laws they are called upon to adjudicate in ways other than originally intended and sometimes even contrary to intentions.
It is this predilection of the current court majority that Sen. Heinrich critiques when he decries the equating of money with speech and corporations with people.