Not for a second. But they will.
He also knows the hypocrisy is strong with his group. They’ll probably just look the other way or come up with some bs reasoning why he’s an exception (if anyone dares to question it publicly).
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, found that a $250,000 cap on the amount of money political candidates can be reimbursed after an election for personal loans to their own campaigns ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech by unjustifiably burdening political expression.
In the ruling authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the court’s conservative justices were in the majority and liberal justices in dissent. Roberts wrote that the law in question “burdens core political speech without proper justification.”
Roberts wrote that the government had failed to show that the measure “furthers a permissible anti-corruption goal, rather than the impermissible objective of simply limiting the amount of money in politics.”
In a blistering dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the court was effectively aiding and abetting corruption in Washington by allowing donors to contribute to a campaign after an election in a way that benefits the candidate personally.
“In striking down the law today, the court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop,” Kagan wrote.
Politicians will know that such payments will go directly to them via the campaign, Kagan added, and the donors will hope for something in return.
“The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption,” Kagan said.
The majority just lays out a pathway for straight-up bribing politicians. The assertion that they didn’t establish a relationship to corruption is mind-boggling.
Please, put them in red cloaks like they’re supposed to wear in Gilead! This isn’t an Islamic state after all. \s (but because they wouldn’t take this as a sarcastic suggestion.)
Most of the time people focus on the first two parts of the First Amendment: religion and speech. There’s a third part, though.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As long as the protests outside the homes of the Supreme Court justices are peaceful, should they count as “petition[ing] the Government for a redress of grievances” as well as free speech?
Like most of the Constitution, the fascist right reserves to itself the ability to pick and choose the bits that are “important” and the ones that are “optional.” The first clause of the 2A is a classic case in point.