Once again, SCOTUS' assumption about there being little consequential corruption as a result of their decision was monumentally stupid, naive, and short-sighted. Corruption is now the rule, with super-PACs, big corporations, and wealthy businesses throwing shit-tons of money at their favorite
stooge candidate.
This decision might be one that Thomas was thinking of when he wrote his concurrence as part of
Dobbs.
In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents.
Thomas equates the "substantive due process" issue with that of more recent SCOTUS decisions that stray from interpreting COTUS and delving into social and societal issues that are not addressed in COTUS.
Of course, in the case of
Citizens United, and the entire issue of political campaign contributions, we saw what a train wreck that McCain-Feingold was. McCain-Feingold was like putting a band-aid on an amputation.
So SCOTUS opened Pandora's Box even further, pretty much shelving individual campaign donations way to the rear. Super PAC use of dark money and the unlimited way they can collect funding has put most of this out of reach. To the point that almost all of Stacy Abrams' contributions come from out of state, as those contributions for Joe Manchin. It's a crooked business.
But I'd be the first to say I don't have the foggiest idea how to make political campaign contributions more fair. Justice Kennedy, who wrote for the majority in Citizens United, based SCOTUS' opinion on 1st Amendment free speech. I don't agree with that, but that ship has already sailed.
