Jeffrey Toobin has posted an article entitled “Another Citizens United, But Worse” with his views and fears on the McCutcheon case that involved a Republican (gasp*!) named Shaun McCutcheon who had the audacity to want to contribute more than the statutory maximum.  Toobin also criticizes the legally “strange” rulings from the Supreme Court that actually require “quid pro quo” showings of corruption instead of the appearance of corruption for First Amendment regulation. The bottom line:  The left fears another defeat in the regulatory construct developed over decades.

Think the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United was bad? A worse one may be on the horizon.

…As Justice Kennedy wrote, the fact that contributors “may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt.” Indeed, he observed further, “political speech cannot be limited based on a speaker’s wealth.”

Citizens United was not an aberration for this Court. It emerged from a definite view about the intersection of campaigns and free speech. The Justices in the majority are engaging in a long-term project to deregulate campaigns. A blessing on unlimited aggregate contributions is the next logical step for them to take—and they have five votes.