Will a Liberal Supreme Court Limit Money in Politics?

Mark Schmitt wrote for the New York Times about the possibility of a liberal Supreme Court reversing Citizen United:

The words “Citizens United,” especially when amplified by a vigorous Democratic presidential nomination fight, have become a potent shorthand for the influence of great wealth over American democracy. With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the possibility of reversing the 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee quickly became a live issue in the election and in the shadowboxing over Justice Scalia’s replacement.

So imagine that a Democratic president’s nominee is eventually confirmed, and at the next opportunity, Citizens United is reversed. What happens next? Will money lose its hold on American politics?

Probably not — though not because money in politics doesn’t matter. Citizens United stands at the end of a long line of decisions that have weakened Congress’s ability to limit money in politics, not all of them wrongly decided. Instead of rolling back all those decisions, we should seek to balance, rather than limit, money, and make it easier for people without wealth to run and be heard.

***