In case you missed the news this summer, [or aren’t subscribed to Public Campaign’s Daily Clips — which you can fix now, here] the Supreme Court set a date to hear McCutcheon v. FEC, a case that challenges aggregate campaign contribution limits. On October 8, 2013, the folks who opened the floodgates for outside spending in Citizens United v. FEC may decide that all contribution limits are unconstitutional. Sound too crazy to be true? As this piece on SCOTUSblog points out, it’s not.

What is even more outrageous is that opponents of campaign finance reform like Brad Smith want to convince ordinary Americans that you have no right to question this ruling. How? By reminding you that you’re not a constitutional lawyer:

[W]hen the Court in Citizens United proclaimed that “independent expenditures … do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption” it was making a statement of constitutional law, not reviewing public opinion polls.

If history has taught us anything, it’s how dangerous it is for Americans to accept this kind of reasoning and presume the Supreme Court can do no wrong. Remember when the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans had no rights as citizens because they were property? Or when they gutted the Fourteenth Amendment? Then there was the time they upheld forced sterilization of the “mentally unfit” with these choice words: “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

These cases prove that the Supreme Court doesn’t always do the right thing, and it’s our duty as citizens to make sure those rulings don’t stand. I don’t care what kind of statement the Supreme Court is making, if it decides our democracy was built to be auctioned to the highest bidder, I’m going to call bullsh*t. And here are plenty of reasons why I’d be right.

original via