I don’t think their arguments are sound because they are trying to combine an originalist viewpoint with a hyper corporate one but in they end are they wrong to recognize cash is king?
I don’t think their arguments are sound because they are trying to combine an originalist viewpoint with a hyper corporate one but in they end are they wrong to recognize cash is king?
My understanding of the ruling you mean is that it decided that freedom of speech includes the right to spend money in order to speak, which is not an extremely far-fetched idea. You may still think the consequences are bad, of course… but let’s focus on what actually happened.