U.S. Supreme Court Says Yes to More Money in Politics

New SCOTUS Ruling Memorializes ‘Pay to Play’ Transactional Politics

We go back to Buckley v. Valeo in our predictions of consequences of this SCOTUS trend.

In turn, the Citizens United presentation served up a follow on course that further changed US government reality.

The day-to-day, mid- and long-term consequences of big money politics brings forward the plans of big money players and their interests at core.

Start with the Corporations have the rights of Natural Persons, a Corporation as a Citizen, a decision long ago that in historical record a clerk (‘Reporter of Decisions’) interpreted erroneously in his Headnote that carried forward as precedent …

Here it is — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.

In fact, the issue of applicability of “Equal Protection to any persons” to the railroads was not addressed in the decision of the Court in the case.

And for those who doubt the factuality of this foundational error in the reporting of the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, as cited in Wikipedia, here’s another citation that reports how Corporations, in case law, obtained personhood standing on which today’s SCOTUS 1st Amendment decision rests — https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/394/#396

And here’s modern-day Buckley and Valeo … with promises of a mega money future …

* https://politicopay.com/buckley-valeo-a-mega-money-future

Then, we cut to today’s Supreme Court decision as reported by long-time NPR court reporter Nina Totenberg and associate, Grady Martin

Re: Decision No. 24–621””'</big>

”(The Supreme Court) decision means that parties get the best of both worlds. They can both coordinate with candidates and raise unlimited funds.”

* https://www.npr.org/2026/06/30/nx-s1-5827039/supreme-court-campaign-finance

”At issue in the case was a post-Watergate law that Congress passed to limit the amount of money individuals can give to political parties. The law, the Federal Election Campaign Act, also limited how much money political parties can spend on their candidates. Other types of organizations, like political action committees and Super PACs, have no limits on the amount of money they can raise and spend on elections…”

”Republicans, including Vice President Vance and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, challenged the law as an unconstitutional violation of political parties’ First Amendment right to raise and spend money on their candidates.”

”Backed by the Trump Justice Department, they contended that the only justification for imposing a fundraising limit on parties is to prevent corruption, but they maintained that there is no evidence that the law has prevented corruption.”

This decision overturns a 2001 Supreme Court case that declared the limits on party spending to be constitutional. It’s the latest in a series of rulings since then that have unraveled campaign finance regulations.

”The saga began in 2010, when the court ruled in Citizens United that corporations have a First Amendment right to unlimited spending on elections…”

# # # #