http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
HuffPo has an article by Paul Blumenthal (above) as its lede this morning with the words, "The First Crack In Citizens United." I'm sorry, for those of you who read HuffPo, let me write that correctly in HuffPo terms, "THE FIRST CRACK IN CITIZENS UNITED" over a photo of Senator Bob Menendez, who was indicted last week by the Justice Department "involving the use of corporate political spending to support a candidate," that candidate being Menendez. This is as the author states the first such case of its kind since Citizens United in 2010.
This is not a bug of the decision, however. It's a feature. This is not a "crack" in the decision. This is a reinforcement.
In Associate Justice Kennedy's ruling, he writes (from Blumenthal), "that corporations should be free to spend unlimited sums on independent political activities since
independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption...[and that those spending on officials...] may have influence over or access to elected officials...[but that] does not mean those officials are corrupt." -Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion in Citizens United. Emphasis added.So you see? This is a case of the enforcement agency doing its job! This is, in Kennedy's view, his decision in action exactly as he imagined it.
Kennedy's entire argument is that money spent on candidates and PACs does not equal de facto corruption, thereby placing the onus of de facto corruption on the justice system. In Kennedy's view, the Menendez case - however bizarrely constructed in his logic - is an appropriate system of political justice, and that the legislative branch cannot try to use "precogs" to prevent crime that hasn't happened.
Rather than proffering my own views on why and how this logic fails, I'm interested in hearing from those more experienced and reflective in this topic...