The Roberts Court thinks plutocrats should be able to buy the government in secret
The Supreme Court took a big step towards oligarchy on Thursday with Americans for Prosperity Foundation vs. Bonta, a 6-3 decision that invalidated a California law requiring charities to report their major donors to the state government. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor in dissent with the other two liberals.
The important impact of this decision is not what it will do in California so much as the precedent it sets. It almost certainly lays the groundwork for further challenges to political donor disclosure requirements in all circumstances. Previous conservative rulings opened a floodgate of bribery and corruption in politics, and now the court will prevent the American people from being able to find out who is buying the government.
Previously, the court had supported this kind of disclosure requirement. In 2010, Citizens United vs. FEC abolished limits on independent political spending by corporations and political committees, but still upheld disclosure requirements for super PACs. The decision created a tsunami of political bribery and corruption and, when combined with several other rulings that made it nearly impossible to prosecute politicians for corruption (like former Republican governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell), means that today rich people and corporations can buy legislators "over the counter like so many pounds of cheese.
There is just one remaining inconvenience for oligarchs who are rigging the political system: people can sort of find out about it. The First Amendment is the excuse Roberts settled on to remove this burdensome obligation.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/roberts-court-thinks-plutocrats-able-210529505.html
SheltieLover
(57,073 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,753 posts)LastDemocratInSC
(3,647 posts)alterfurz
(2,474 posts)They do. -- Noam Chomsky