Just a reminder:
Of the Supreme Court's reasoning
in the Citizens United case: (emp add)
"this court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy"
Apparently the 5 Supremers define "electorate" so as to exclude the minority 4 Supremers and many, many voters. This seems to be the bait that David Brooks swallowed with his recent column noted on a more recent post at this Blog. Money talks, like the dummy, but we don't know who's paying for the ventriloquist.
Certainly the millions being gathered in by Ginnie Thomas in no way influences her husband. Right?