Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

"Pause for a moment to consider just how extraordinary Roberts' claim is. Congress has no legitimate objective in preventing donors from putting cash straight into a candidate's bank account after an election? Really? It might seem like common sense that these contributions open the door to corruption. As Kagan noted in dissent, donors might contribute to victorious candidates in exchange for 'government benefits-maybe favorable legislation, maybe prized appointments, maybe lucrative contracts.' While Kagan condemns these agreements as 'sordid bargains,' however, Roberts deems them nothing more than 'influence and access.' And the court has already held that Congress cannot limit contributions to stop lawmakers from performing favors for those who bankrolled their campaigns.

"Still, Kagan argued, this particular restriction targets an uncommonly dangerous kind of 'dirty dealing': These donations do not even fund political speech, but instead 'personally enrich those already elected to office.' This distinction matters. When a donation funds 'electoral activities,' Kagan wrote, it 'in no way adds to his personal wealth.' When a donation helps to repay the candidate's loan, by contrast, 'every dollar given goes straight into the candidate's pocket. With each such contribution, his assets increase; he can now buy a car or make tuition payments or join a country club-all with his donors' dollars.' These donations 'have exceptional value to the candidate-which his donors of course realize. And when the contributions occur after the election, their corrupting potential further increases.'"

-- Mark Joseph Stern, "Elena Kagan Is Mourning American Democracy", Slate, 2022-05-16