Citizen's United is backfiring

[lopri]

I mean, the logical end point of Citizens United is that laws banning bribery (from anyone or anything from anywhere) is unconstitutional. How would you distinguish a bribe from a "sincere" contribution? That will be fun to watch if the SCOTUS tries to perform legal acrobatic to create such a distinction.

I'll add another one besides bribery. The logic of Citizens United also lends itself to legalized vote-buying. Imagine: One pays someone to vote for her preferred candidate/position. Wouldn't it be a legitimate means of persuading other citizens? (Remember spending = speech)

Persuading other citizens is the hallmark of democracy. Until now, you needed a good argument or a solid evidence to persuade fellow citizens. It's hard to make such an innocent disclaimer post-Citizens United. Money is legally and morally legitimate means of persuasion.

Eventually, disclosure requirement (which survived Citizens United) will be invalidated as well. Since the 1st amendment prevents restrictions on speech on the basis of speakers identity, revealing identity of speaker is of little consequence. In the marketplace of ideas, what matters is the speech itself, not who speaks. Thus requiring disclosure of speaker's identity will likely impose a burden on the ability to speak.

P.S. The above rationale has already contributed to eroding the principles established by Citizens United in the case I linked in my previous post.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27557
http://volokh.com/2012/01/10/supreme...eign-citizens/