The Religious Exemption. It's Principle, Except When It's Not.

There have been some constant battles since the latest effort to create a more comprehensive access to health insurance began. But one has been increasingly annoying, galling, and disingenuous. The demand for a religious exemption for businesses.

The idea is that some businesses are owned by religious people, and those people may oppose abortion and/or birth control, or common sense. Comprehensive health insurance would help pay for things like those listed. So, they should not have to offer comprehensive health insurance to their workers. They should be exempt from part of the law.

And many people love the idea of a "compromise" on this. The compromise being that you just let religious institutions deny people basic preventative health care...cause [holy writing of your choice]. And you let businesses with religious owners do the same. And in exchange, nonreligious owners can actually take care of their employees. It is interesting how saying you want to deny someone something for religious reasons sound reasonable to so many people...But that's for another post.

In July two federal appeals courts decided that it was ridiculous for a business to have a religion, as opposed to it's owners. But that is not where the story ended. Last week the federal appeals court decided to agree on how unfair comprehensive health insurance is on the pious.

... 

Requiring companies to cover their employees’ contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds, even if they are not purchasing the contraception directly. 

“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.  

...

It is an interesting point, I grant you. Is it unfair/unconscionable/unacceptable to force people of religious faith to fund and pay money into services that they feel contravene their religious tenets?

Should people be forced to pay for sinful stuff?


Well, I tried to think if there were any other good examples I could draw on for legal rulings. Then I recalled religious pacifism. For some war and fighting is unconscionable, a violation of the will of their god. And, as many point out, tax dollars go to many places in the government, including to the military.

MPR Photo/Elizabeth Stawicki

So, when a pacifist pays taxes, they pay for the ability to go to war. And during a war, they fund that war. So, should religious pacifist be exempt from taxes? Or, should special means be put in place to assure that their tax dollars cannot be used by the military? Should steps be taken to respect and maintain their religious concerns.

Lucky for us, a Quaker, Priscilla Adams, brought the question to court.

Back in 2003, you may remember it (we were at war), her fight with the government came to a head. Going back to 1996 she had been suing the government, saying that she and others had valid religious grounds to have protections against their money being used to fund the military. As part of her religious convictions. Adams for years had been refusing to pay part of her federal taxes.

The response from the government was to demand that she pay her back taxes, and a 50% penalty. She fought this, and worked to try and keep them from placing a lean on her wages to put money towards wars.

So the fight went up the judicial ladder. And, in 2003, the federal appeals courts rules against her. And then the Supreme Court chose to pass on offering an opinion. The courts had spoken.

The result, you may have religious grounds to not pay a portion of your taxes, but the courts, Congress, and the federal government don't care. Pay the taxes and pray for forgiveness.

That is quite a different view from what we are seeing now. Now when we consider should religious people be forced to fund services that may go to things like birth control, the courts say that it's wrong. (wag a finger) These people cannot be placed in this position. The law says everyone should be able to access the full array of preventative health. But, screw that...Religion. Religion trumps all...now.

Funny.

I wonder if religious pacifist should go to court again? They might have a chance now. Doesn't it follow? Shouldn't these grounds be sound enough for them to fight against tax paying? It does seem like the same strain of argument. Or, do supporters of ACA religious exemptions still hold the old opinion that if religion is getting in the way of funding the military, you should suck it up and fund the military?

I do get a feeling that many might have this attitude. That abortion and birth control are the legit religious concerns, the respectable ones. I'd like to think that's wrong, but at a minimum, I don't see religious conservatives as bothered by the Quaker's plight. They seem like they'd be first in line to condemn the Quakers.

But this ruling may not stand. This will be going to the Supreme Court...hmm. Okay, I' not feeling better with that thought. Will the court have their 90's attitude to religious exemptions? Or, will they have the oppose President Obama attitude?

Half the court is already friendly to attacking access to education, voting rights, and the ACA as a whole. That group will most likely be happy to further establish religious prominence over law. As it is, I think there is already a case coming up that may do this in one way.

I guess we will see. Because we are stuck waiting while conservatives play their petty games. And religious exemptions are such a petty game.

The changing face of racial prejudice and bigotry in America? *UPDATED*

From the Caroline County Court of Virginia:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

These were the words of the trial judge that Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving faced. They were found guilty of miscegenation, the mixing of the races. In particular, marrying in Washington D.C., then returning to live in Virginia. They were sentenced to 1 year in jail. To avoid jail they were allowed to leave the state. The case led to a Supreme Court ruling 10 years later ending anti-miscegenation laws in the country.

That was 1959.

In 2013, Texas Assistant Attorney General Sam L. Ponder said:

“ You've got African Americans, you've got Hispanics, you've got a bag full of money. Does that tell you — a light bulb doesn't go off in your head and say, ‘This is a drug deal?’ ”

This is how he wants to present his case. Blacks. Hispanics. Money. That only happens with drugs. Because that's how those people get money.

It's been more than half a century, and we still seem to have shifted only so far. You can look at the statistics for arrests, convictions, and sentencing by race, and the difference are quite stark. Stop and frisk. Papers please. And on and on. We still have many issues yet to seriously address in society and law.

Justice Scalia

And you can look at voting. Some communities get access to machines and facilities, and some just have to do with fewer broken voting machines and lines that stretch on for hours on end. Or faulty information released on the when's and where's of voting. Or new rules meant to discourage or bar minority voting.

And still, Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was out and about today denouncing the Voting Rights Act as just a "perpetuation of racial entitlement." I wonder what Right Wing pundit he picked that up from? Racial entitlement? Voting? That's charming, isn't it? But he's one of the conservative movement that is eager to pave over protection of rights for minorities. Rights which certain states have for decades shown a certain eagerness to go after (Forgive me. Conservatives in those states have been eager to do this.)

The Voting Rights Act is up before the Supreme Court this year. Will see what's left of it, if Scalia can get his way.

_____________
ADDENDUM:

Meant to also add a link to a piece considering the impact of the end of the Voting Rights Act.

Wrapping up an election - What the Right learned. *UPDATED*

It would be nice to say now, that the Right in this country have sagely taken some lessons away from this election. That they see where some ideological extremes they embraced were too far. That some of their attacks on rights were morally wrong. That the Tea Party, the Religious Right, and the billionaire backers asked for things no one should agree to do.

Let's pretend for a moment that happen. Steve Schimdt, a one time adviser to John McCain says the GOP needs to break from reactionary angry voices like Rush Limbaugh. Good. Frum is also unhappy with conservative media (which booted him). But they seem to be a minority.

Among the conservative voice online, we heard a very loud message. "That !@$#ing #!@&*+ has done it to us again." At the University of Mississippi students went out into the street screaming and throwing rocks in anger.

In a more established grouping, as seen in the piece on Steve Schimdt's concerns, it was also noted that the Tea Party Patriots had a message. WAR. They will not stand for "moderates" like Mitt Romney leading anymore. They are naming themselves the rightful heirs of the conservative movement. This group is eager to fight, Republicans, and they have many billionaire backers to help. Not a good start for change, except a shift further Right.

An odd addendum to the Tea Party right comes from Boehner who acted like their was no Tea Party caucus in the House. Seems like a disconnect, but will the Tea Party make life easy if Boehner were to actually break? He's already been made to walk with back a bit.

For the Family Research Council their is an eagerness to increase it's aggression against what it deems as an attack on morality. With the passage in multiple states of marriage equality, they want more aggressive civil disobedience against these rights. What then? Will they be ruining people's weddings. Will they be trying to humiliate and terrorize newlyweds? Yeah. That's a winning strategy, isn't it?

On the business front, we are hearing now that a number of CEO's are cutting jobs and trying to blame it on Obama. Pathetic. From coal magnates to the owner of Red Lobster, they took this electoral loss, and punished their employees. They took the risk of a loss of ANY profits, and decided to take it out of the hides of the workers. This is how they do business. I wouldn't care to do business with them.

Among advisers, Grover Norquist wants everyone to believe that the election was good and positive for the GOP, on many levels. Others have tried to go as far as saying that Republicans have a mandate coming out of the election. I know, it is crazy. A lot of sad opinions.

Some want to reach out to Latinos by doing a little immigration reform. Put Rubio up to talk it up, and then have him run for president. So, it's not about helping Latinos or understand their issues or concerns, just buy them off.

Some also are saying that the GOP needs to reach out to women. Karen Hughes wants to cut the tongues out of GOP representatives if they talk like Akins. That is great. Except, they aren't upset at the ideas. They are still pushing the denial of reproductive rights. They still oppose equal pay. They still think of women who use the Pill as sluts. As I heard today they think open talk on this costs votes. It's a strategic pain. They aren't growing and learning about their mistaken policy positions, as we see in Ohio.

Melina Mara/ The Washington Post via Getty Images

In Ohio the Republican party has now decided, post-election to renew an attack on the reproductive health care access of women. Wednesday, the 14th, they will be voting on restricting access to abortion. That is the reaction, "Onward, damn those women."

And in Florida, the governor still is avoiding the media and now is refusing to acknowledge the utter failure his election day was.

And in the Congress? In talking about the coming budget fight, Speaker Boehner offers as a way forward, effectively, the plan that Romney ran and lost on. They are complaining that the president must meet their expectations. How is that moving things forwards? How is that finding answers to our problems?


How is any of this showing that ANY lessons were learned?


The Conservatives are active in these days following the election. They are prepping for in four years. Hell, they are looking for the soonest local election where you are. They want to put the usual suspects from their clique on your school board. They want to put a pal in the mayor's office, or on the city council. They are grooming a like minded fellow ready to be voted onto the PUC or onto a court.

This is what Nordquist was hinting at. They can loose a presidency. They cannot take the Senate. But they are establishing bases of power lower, they are writing law to keep liberals out, or to get to the US Supreme Court to get desired rulings.

The key reason that their was little change in the House of Representatives is all the states that the GOP gained control of State Legislatures. With that power they redid the shapes of districts, limiting the places that Democrats could win House races, and bolstering the ability of Republicans to hold and keep seats across the country. Those state races that they fought for were pivotal. We can't let them keep them.

We have to be active on the ground. We need to find people to run against Republicans for all offices. We need to be seeing the decisions they are making in office NOW. We need to not decide that the elections over and now we get to disengage.

Don't disengage now. Don't let others. We all have to care what happens on the school board. We have to care what the city council is doing. We have to care what out legislature is up to. AND we need to bother to be heard with what will be happening in Congress.


Stay active and engaged.

_____________
ADDENDUM:

In Texas, the treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party is calling for Texas to secede from the the nation.

...“We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity,” Morrison wrote. “But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity.” 

“Texas was once its own country, and many Texans already think in nationalist terms about their state. We need to do everything possible to encourage a long-term shift in thinking on this issue. Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way in peace, sign a free trade agreement among the states and we can avoid this gut-wrenching spectacle every four years,” he wrote. 

The contents of the letter were first reported by the Texas Observer and TFN Insider. 

Morrison also wrote that “many members of minority groups are simply racist against the party most white people happen to vote for.” He singled out Asian Americans, who he said should be Republican “as they earn more money and pay more in taxes than white Americans.”...

WOW! That is some hardcore racist BS. The party head in the county said he didn't know what the treasurer was thinking or writing. But that isn't to say he disagrees. Like with the rape talk they are upset at, how does their rhetoric or legislating differ? Maybe in coarseness. But I have seen a lot of resentment towards business Hispanics already, for not getting in place with Republicans.

But this is how the GOP is acting and reacting now. They are pissed the country didn't go the way they want. And they are pissed the demographics they deem to be theirs won't just do and vote as the party wants.

Why your vote matters TODAY - Final Edition

To consolidate the series of posts I've done the last month, Why Your Voting Matters in November, I am placing links to all of the posts here in this post.

If you haven't voted yet in the elections here in the United States yet, I hope you will be today. Every vote matters. And the numbers that get out will shape the results by tonight, and will shape where our country goes from here.

To appreciate that, some points:

• On American Health Care: 

            Why your voting matters in November - Obama Cares Edition

• On The Rights of Women: 

            Why your voting matters in November - Womening Up Edition

• On Gay Rights: 

            Why your voting matters in November - Out and Equal Edition

• On The Future of the Courts: 

            Why your voting matters in November - Scalia Edition

• On American Education: 

            Why your voting matters in November - Head of the Class Edition

• On Disaster Relief: 

            Why your voting matters in November - Emergency Mitt Edition

• On The Place Of Religion: 

            Why your voting matters in November - God's Own Party Edition

• On The Choice Of A Vice President: 

            Why your voting matters in November - Heartbeat from the Presidency Edition


Again. I hope you will get out and vote today. It is important. So much is at stake.

VOTE.

Why your voting matters in November - Scalia Edition

Hello, have you met Antonin?

He's a real asshole.

He's also a powerful justice on the United States Supreme Court. And he's an asshole, which I may have already alluded to.

When "Obamacare" was before the court, Scalia was eager to talk about the "Cornhusker Kickback," which was a deal that had been considered in Congress to woo Nebraska support for the bill through added benefits. It was dropped from the bill long before it was passed, and long before it was before the court. But Right Wing media liked to talk about it. And, somehow, Scalia felt it was an important issue that proved the unconstitutionality of the law. Like I said, he's an asshole, and he either at times doesn't know what he's talking about, or he makes stuff up on the bench to bolster his ideological positions. Take your pick.

And I could go on, looking at his decisions on cases, his dubious ties to groups coming before him, his friendships to people affected or tied to cases he decides on, ...and, like I said, I could go on.

But what is interesting to note is more of what he has said of what will come in the future.

From Salon:

... 

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” he said. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.” And then he went to bed that night and slept like a baby.  

...

It takes a special kind of man to shrug off challenges to death penalty and abortion restrictions with nary a care in the world about how his interpretations of text might affect real human lives, and to use the phrase “homosexual sodomy” in 2012. Give him this, though: He’s consistent, down to his language. In 2003, when the Supreme Court struck down Texas sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, paving the way for a more widespread dissolution of similar statutes in other states, Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion. At the time, he argued that “nowhere does the Court’s opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a ‘fundamental right,’” adding, “It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.” 

...

Scalia is a walking anachronism. He doesn't blink on executions. He'd end access to abortion with even less thought. He'd strip away even basic gay rights, if he could. He cloaks these positions in some arcane sense of being a strict constructionist (The view one is very limited in how they can interpret law.), a protector of the Founding Fathers. It's not true. He's preserving his world view, his religious structure, and his ideology. He will bend law to meet his own ends. (And I will concede in his history he has taken positions I at least partially agree with.) And it is rewarding.

For these views, Antonin Scalia is a Conservative Superhero. Scott Brown of Massachusetts listed him as the sort of judge he wants more of in the Supreme Court. Mitt Romney has said that Antonin Scalia is the model of judge he wants to appoint more of. He is beloved.

And he can be a beginning, if we let him. With Romney in the presidency, conservative judges will begin flowing into courts, just as they were under George W Bush. Only now it will be worse, with the Tea Party and forces like the Koch Brothers knowing how much more power they wield. It is in reach to fully tilt our legal system to the Right.

This is a real risk. Particularly with the United States Supreme Court. In the next presidential term, it is confidently held that two or more justices will be retiring and need replacing. Two more Scalia? Can you imagine?

What happens to the rights of women? To the rights of gays? What happens to unions? What else that we can't imagine being eroded will be?

The GOP, the zealots among their followers, and their billionaire backers have big dreams. And activism AND voting are important in standing in their way.

It is not just about voting for President Obama. It is about keeping the Senate, and maybe expanding the seat advantage. It is about turning around the House. It is about getting in good governors in the states (They do appoint judges.). It is about learning about judges and justices in your states that are on the ballot and being sure good people are on the bench.

We have to be active, interested, and vocal. For example, in Iowa, in 2010, conservatives are mobilized to go after 3 Iowa Supreme Court justices and kick them off the bench. Why? Because they are among the ones that found gay marriage constitutional. For that they had to go, say conservatives. Now, in this election, another of the justices is up for a vote and faces heavy assault from conservatives  from Bobby Jindal to Rick Santorum. Will the good people of Iowa also mobilize and support this justice? Do they know what's happening? Do they know they should care? Can you help? And what do you know about what is happening on your own ballot?

Please, find out, and get active.

And vote.

GOP still can't get over Health Care Reform - Court Edition *UPDATED*

Following on from my last post, we can see sanity is still far in the distance for conservatives.

Since then, what I expected has come to fruition as Justice Roberts has become a popular new conspiracy theory. For some on the left Roberts is playing a crafty game. He's trying to come off as "moderate" now (Though, I seem to remember his previous decisions which would make me doubt that.) to curb outrage at future rulings. Others think he's trying to use his ruling to set up dominoes for future machinations. OR, he came to have doubts about the constitutional validity of striking the law down. I don't know. Don't care. We need to have thoughtful judges, who have no interest in politics and political friends, named to the court. Beyond that, we are stuck with who's on the bench now.

But where liberals are suspicious (reasonable suspicion) of motives, conservatives have gone full tilt. Savage, on the radio, decided that Roberts was mentally off kilter as he agreed partially with the liberals on the court. Roberts deals with epilepsy, and takes medication, so that's why he acted this way. And then that he then went on to right a multi page ruling. Pathetic. But beyond Savage, Beck is printing shirts calling Roberts a coward. Others call him a traitor...for not agreeing with their ill informed opinions.

Speaking of strange opinions...the dissent in the case. The dissent in that case. While conservatives may have decided that Roberts is evil, we can hope liberals have learned finally Kennedy is in no way liberal or friendly, barring the odd occasional agreement. But this dissent. In it, Kennedy joins in saying that not only is the mandate invalid. But as it is so important to the plan, the whole of the law needed to be immediately dismantled. That is quite a leap. A leap Roberts came to see as impossible to make. But Kennedy? Sure, why not? I expected this from Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, who seem happy to be largely political operatives now. (Though I remember when I could appreciate a ruling from Scalia as an honest view...Haven't been able to see his logic in the last few years.) Kennedy, though, he's conservative. But I thought he had more sense then to go this far. But from the behind the scene stories. He worked hard to keep Roberts in line and on board to destroy the reform. (Heck, he was key in pushing Citizen United.)


Then when Roberts came to his conservative colleagues to get them to join him in going after the Commerce Clause, which they all want to do, they refused. They would not stand with him on a common goal, while not getting to fully strike down the law. They instead did their own pissy dissent, in which they ignored Robert's points and ignored the existence of the majority position.

This court is a disappointment. It is not supposed to be a political tool. Hell, the rumors now are that Thomas has been spreading the information about how the court was arguing out the ACA case. Trying to use it to create pressure with certain columnist against Roberts. Leaking deliberations from the Supreme Court...That's where we are now. Thankfully, Roberts seems to partially see this as problem, for now. We really need a Democrat in the White House for the next series of retirements. To get good and honest judicial minds on to the court.

It is just sad to see. Conservatives have done some masterful work to all but break the Supreme Court. But when you see their efforts in Congress, you can see how much they have practiced dismantling this republic.

But they don't want to acknowledge this work.

____
ADDENDUM:

7/3/2012 -
I added a link that I missed on the Supreme Court info leaks in the post.

Also, I came across another indication that the number of leaks of information from the court are growing. Another source came out to counter some of the previous source. Congrats, SCOTUS, you are now officially just like the Executive and Legislative branch.

On the road to Health Care Reform

After a long week of teasing by the Supreme Court, we finally had our answer to the great question of whether the Health Care Reform law (ACA) championed by President Obama would stand. The waiting throng were inflamed. On one side, conservatives licked their lips at being able to attack and denounce ideas of mandates and secured rights to medical aid. On the other side were those eager for a win in the hopes of finally securing the foundations of reform to being addressing the core issues impacting millions.

And, for this moment, Chief Justice Roberts decided to be the voice of the majority ruling. 5-4, in favor of the mandate being constitutional (The ruling is at the link.). Laying out the reasoning, it was decided the reform was not defensible by the Commerce Clause, but that it did fall under the power of taxation.

And with word out, confusion reigned for a moment, in only the way the proud and loud professional media only can do. But quickly it was clear that the reforms had been preserved, mostly.

And in response...

Conservatives chose to be quite silly.

from Reuters

Apparently the idea of the poor having a guarantee of insurance and health care access conflicted with their Christ-like faith. But, I don't get religion.

And the politicians did their own bits of stage work.

Rep. Mike Pence from Indiana immediately announced that the decision was akin to 9/11. He apologized, but it nicely set the tone for the sheer ridiculousness of conservative reaction, like above. Also, he said his words were thoughtless...but how different was it from his unusual political comments in attacking the president?

The former spokesman for the Michigan GOP sent out an email declaring this law and the court's affirmation of it were grounds for armed rebellion. Though he hoped that his vision of the country would be established without having to shoot anyone. The reason for rebellion? If the government decided it could make decisions on personal choices like this, then the government is a threat. Now, at the same time, the GOP feels controlling women's reproductive choices, controlling family options for gay people, etc., is exactly what government should be doing. And this power over people, no doubt, is something people like the former spokesman feel should be defended.

Sen. Rand Paul from Kentucky said that the reform is unconstitutional, regardless of the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court, according to Paul, are just a couple of people, who don't know much about the constitution. ...He's a rising GOP star...

Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin said he planned to just ignore the law and wait. Same old, same old in the leadership department from Walker. Suppose if the Koch asked him to set up an insurance exchange he'd wag his tail and run off to do it. And, Gov. Bobby Jindal in Louisiana won't being doing his job either. Guess he's waiting got to get back on addressing volcano monitoring first.

Then there's Romney. And, as usual, what he had to say was empty and false. It would be nice if the GOP candidate for president was less a ridiculous clown, and if he would treat the effort to improve health care seriously. Life isn't all japes and pranks, Mitt.


One point the GOP have made clear is that mandates are just ODIOUS!!!

Except when it comes to women and their reproductive choices. Then it's up to the brave GOP to step in and guide the dainty women folk away from their silly opinions. But, all that Health Care Reform offers to women, is unacceptable.

The boot mark of Citizens United.

I have to appreciate Justice Stephen Breyer stepping up to offer clear concerns in the dissenting opinion on the matter of allowing corporate interest unfettered spending on political campaigns in Montana.

Citizen United has been a continuing problem for the country. And money in politics has only grown in it's shaping of politics and politicians. It is remaking the landscape.

I do appreciate the idealist line of thing that money is speech, and to deny the rich and powerful this speech is to hamper free speech.

It is true. Money can say many things. And if it is limited in use during campaign, the power of the rich in politics will be limited. But we, as a nation, make choices on speech, most famously illustrated in the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.:

The Case of  The 1% vs. The Rest of Us...Eep!

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

We do make exceptions (shouting fire, etc.) for the safety and well-being of society. Now, we should not make such decisions lightly, but we can and do make those decisions.

And as Breyer notes, in Montana the laws prohibiting corporate action were placed on the books after a good deal of corruption and bribery that went rampant.

... Montana’s attorney general claimed that the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act should stand as proof that the court’s argument had already been proven wrong over 100 years earlier, when the state’s mining billionaires blatantly bought off state legislators to further their interests. Most notoriously, copper king William Clark was appointed to the Senate by the state legislature, only to have his seating blocked by the Senate in Washington, D.C. over widespread evidence of bribery.  

... 

(via TPM) 

 

To pretend this is not a continuing risk is farcical. And to ignore the impact this money continues to have is dangerous.

Breyer's words are wise.

... 

“Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so,” Breyer wrote.

Some people need to wise up. Other's need to stop being so damned greedy.