The real danger behind the ‘McCutcheon’ ruling

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 17:38, April 6, 2014 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Item |author=Ruth Marcus, |source=The Washington Post |date=April 4, 2014 |url=")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) Ruth Marcus
Source The Washington Post
Date April 4, 2014
Quotes-start.png In McCutcheon, Roberts oversaw the metastasis of Kennedy’s unrealistic test from expenditures to contributions. A politician receiving one humongous check, with proceeds to be distributed among candidates and party committees, will naturally be “grateful” to the donor but will not feel “obligated” in a way that constitutes corruption, he asserted, happily substituting his judgment about what is corrupting for that of members of Congress who might actually know. Quotes-end.png

Add or change this opinion item's references

This item argues against the position Supreme Court voted correctly on the topic McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.