David Sirota and Jared Jacang Maher write:

On the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Roberts Supreme Court, one point of consensus persists: Most Americans believe money corrupts the political process — and they want to overturn the Citizens United precedent that empowers oligarchs to buy elections.

And yet, in two little-noticed cases — including one spearheaded by Vice President J.D. Vance — the high court could soon do the opposite, eliminating the last restrictions on campaign donations and obstructing law enforcement’s efforts to halt bribery.

As we recount in our new book Master Plan, the Citizens United case was the culmination of conservatives’ 50-year master plan to deregulate the campaign finance system and legalize corruption. What started as an incendiary memo from soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell became one ruling equating money with constitutionally protected speech and another extending personhood rights to corporations.

Soon after John Roberts and Sam Alito were installed on the court two decades ago, they helped deliver the apotheosis: 2010’s Citizens United opinion manufacturing the legal fiction that spending by — and donations to — allegedly independent political groups cannot be limited because those expenditures “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Though Citizens United unleashed a 28-fold increase in election spending, the ruling preserved the legality of campaign contribution limits. But they could now be destroyed by Vance’s case aiming to reverse a 2001 Supreme Court ruling and eliminate restrictions on political parties’ coordinated spending with candidates. If those rules are killed off, party committees could become pass-through conduits for big donors to circumvent donation limits and deliver much larger payments in support of lawmakers who can reward them with government favors. [Continue reading…]