Political speech or corruption?

[Commentary] In the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , the court declared that corporate independent political expenditures are protected free speech under the First Amendment and cannot be constrained. The court wrestled with the possibility that unlimited spending might have a corrupting influence on politics, but in the end it decided that free speech was the overriding goal and that as long as the expenditures were independent of candidates, and transparent, they would not increase corruption. The campaign cycles since then have been increasingly awash in this spending, much of it going to super PACs. Now comes a disturbing set of facts that call into question the court’s logic and conclusions about corruption.

The April 1 indictment of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) on bribery charges alleges a chronology that should worry everyone who cares about integrity in national politics. According to the indictment, a wealthy Florida ophthalmologist, Salomon Melgen, who was seeking Mr. Menendez’s support on matters before the US government, wrote two checks for $300,000 each in 2012 to the Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC devoted to supporting the election of Senate Democrats. The donations were earmarked for use in the senator’s state of New Jersey. The senator was the only Democrat running for the Senate then in New Jersey. The doctor handed over one of the checks to a close friend of Sen Menendez at the senator’s annual fundraiser. Is this what the court envisioned as “independent”? The principles of “independent” expenditure are being routinely subverted. The reality of corrupt politics -- money for favors -- is growing more evident by the day.