THE ROBERTS COURT & RESURRECTING "PAY TO PLAY" POLITICS

Comedic effect aside, the recent cattle-call of GOP presidential hopefuls in Las Vegas, taken together with the jaw-dropping, convoluted, precedent-ignoring, faux-naivete' decision by John Roberts and his four fellow conservative ideologues in McCutcheon v FEC is the surest evidence yet that the thunder we've lately heard just over the far horizon does, indeed, portend a storm headed in the direction of the democratic ideals which make America, well, America.

EXCURSUS:  Justice Kennedy is not "the swing vote" on this Court, despite the efforts of the editorial staff at the Washington Post to make him so.  He is reliably conservative and predictably ideological, as his record indicates.

The optics of four Republican presidential hopefuls making a Mecca-like pilgrimage to Las Vegas in order to genuflect before and profess their fealty to a character as disreputable as Sheldon Adelson would have been, in times past, unseemly, embarrasing and potentially career-ending.

Adelson is a man whose life, business operations and bank accounts are hidden from public view in the shadowy underworld of high-stakes gambling, high-risk and highly-questionable investment and various forms of behind-closed-doors "entertainment" designed for those able to afford the ultimate in discretion.

He plies the trades that have elevated him to the rarefied ranks of the world's uber-wealthy in the filth of the neon-lit, faux-opulence of the Vegas strip, the grime and human misery of Macau's gambling and "entertainment" district, and the dark world of the government-protected thugs who run the Chinese gaming industry.

If your daughter brought him home and introduced him as "my future husband," your first inclination, upon their departure, would be to take a shower.  Your second would be to call a local priest and ask if he knew of a cloistered convent carefully hidden away somewhere in the Himalayas.

But, in the wake of Citizens United and, now, McCutcheon, the likes of Sheldon Adelson have "earned" the obeisance of Republicans who have their sights seriously set on the highest office in the land.

Of course, it wasn't by virtue---a word that seldom shares a sentence with Mr. Adelson's name---of his sterling character and a $100 check that Sheldon Adelson "earned" the allegiance of GOP candidates.

No, their curtsies were "earned" by Mr. Adelson's campaign contributions of over $95 million to various members of the GOP Clown Show during the 2012 election cycle---a mind-boggling individual contribution given legal sanction by the Fab Five of the Roberts Court per their decision in Citizens United.

More importantly, however...

While Mr. Adelson's $95 million "earned" the fawning attention of these political geldings, it also purchased unlimited access to some of the most powerful movers, shakers and lawmakers of the United States government.  

And, of course, this "pay-to-play" access was accompanied by guarantees of full and expedited consideration per Mr. Adelson's policy wants and wishes.

There was a time in South Carolina when such "pay to play" politics could result in unpaid vacation time behind barbed wire in Lee County.  But, given the majority opinion in McCutcheon, written by the Chief Justice and concurred with by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy, it is evident that times have changed and, incredibly, "pay-to-play" now has the official imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court.   

In that opinion, Mr. Roberts---either naively, cynically, or in service of his long-standing desire to legislatively/judicially gut regulatory rules/statutes regarding every aspect of the ballot---actually states that "government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford."

EXCURSUS:  Few things are more pejoratively characteristic of the Roberts Court than the almost gleeful way in which the five conservative justices aggressively ignore precedent---an act of judicial arrogance which makes this Court, in historical terms, a virtual outlier. 

Writing for the majority in McCutcheon, Mr. Roberts gives no consideration to the clear precedent set in McConnell v FEC (2003), a case in which the Court held, as Bill Moyers notes, "that money---and the access it purchases---has a pernicious influence on the political process." 

In as scathing a dissent as he has written while serving as a Supreme, Justice Breyer responded to Mr. Roberts' opinion/sentiment by noting Mr. Roberts' lack of attention to precedent and then writing that "The Court in McConnell upheld these new contribution restrictions under the First Amendment for the very reason the plurality today discounts or ignores. Namely, the Court found they thwarted a significant risk of corruption---understood not as quid pro quo bribery, but as privileged access to and pernicious influence upon elected representatives."

As we already know, of course, the very dynamic that Justice Breyer presciently cautioned against---unrestricted campaign contributions opening the door for "a significant risk of corruption" taking the form of "privileged access to and pernicious influence upon elected representatives"---has come to pass.

Example?

Suddenly, we find legislators in GOP-dominated states in full froth at the very idea that they have allowed their constituents to continue to participate in online gaming---"What were we thinking?"  In full repentance mode, these GOP hacks offer acts of contrition in the form of new bills---introduced on an almost daily basis---to rid their states of such provocative enterprises.

Why the sudden interest in banning online gaming?

Because it cuts into Sheldon Adelson's profits.  Why spend the money to gamble in Adelson's Las Vegas casino when you can do the same while sitting on a stool at the local 7-Eleven?

The lesson of Citizens United and McCutcheon is clear:  If you want to play, you've got to pay---BIG!  Writing a $100 check and putting a candidate's sign in your front yard will get you no more access/influence than a never-ending tsunami of fund-raising emails that greet you every time you open your email Inbox.  

In other words, if you thought before now that a hundred bucks would get you an audience with your preferred candidate for discussion of policy issues close to your heart, you will want to reflect on the possibility that you entered the 21st-century with eyes wide shut.