McCutcheon's supreme cynicism.

• Author: Fischer, Brendan
• Position: Objection! - Essay

One of the many outrageous aspects of the U.S. Supreme Court's McCutcheon v. FEC decision is how blatantly it served the interests of the very wealthiest. After all, the plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, was complaining that his free speech rights were being infringed because he was prohibited from spending more than $123,200 in aggregate direct contributions to politicians.

But who in America can afford to spend that much?

According to a Public Campaign analysis, in the 2012 elections just 1,219 people in America even came close to the aggregate limits the Court struck down. That is four people out of every million.

This was a decision not for the 1 percent but for the top half of the 0.001 percent.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said limits on giving money amount to a "burden on broader participation in the democratic process." But the impact of the decision won't result in "broader participation" by more people. It means that the same small handful of individuals who are already dominating the political game will now do so more broadly.

As Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his McCutcheon dissent: "Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard."

This is the latest step in a long-term project by the Roberts Court to dismantle legislatively passed limits on money in politics, a mission

in sharp contrast with Roberts's statement during his confirmation hearings that his role as chief justice is to be an "umpire."

"It's my job to call balls and strikes, not pitch or bat," he said. "Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them."

Yet in recent years, Roberts has changed the rules around campaign finance law entirely, striking down laws enacted by democratically elected representatives and laying the groundwork for the complete annihilation of all efforts to limit money in politics.

"Turning the pro-democracy First Amendment into a tool for use by the wealthy to dominate politics didn't happen by accident," says Adam Lioz, counsel at Demos, a liberal think tank.

Roberts's willingness to dismantle campaign finance jurisprudence has also been aided by relentless challenges to campaign finance law pushed by well-funded actors like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, James Bopp, and the Center for Competitive Politics.

"As corporations and wealthy individuals focused more on buying elections," Lioz notes, "allied lawyers have led a well-orchestrated campaign to challenge--and ultimately eliminate--the commonsense legal protections that prevent the direct translation of economic might into political power."

McCutcheon builds on the Court's awful ruling in Citizens United so that now, limits on both independent expenditures and direct contributions can be justified only if they prevent actual or apparent "quid pro quo corruption" like bribery--think American Hustle, or bags of cash in exchange for political favors.

The Court is now denying the corrosive forms of influence from a money-dominated political system that most would call...