In Citizens United, one of the dissenters mentioned the problem of how one would distinguish Citizen's United from Fox News. The dissenter then ducked the question by saying the question wasn't before the court because CU was not a news organization. That's a cop-out. And the problem remains. How can the government limit contributions to PACS but not investments in Fox or some other politically oriented "news" source.

I understand the argument that contributions to a PAC might be regulated even if expenditures by a PAC cannot, but do we have any doubt that Rupert Murdoch or Jeff Bezos or the guys who own all those radio stations are not in a position to do some quid pro quo corrupting? When you get to drawing lines, I think the argument in Buckley fails, but in the opposite direction from that taken in the article (and the linked essay). It's just too easy to say that something "might" engender "the appearance of" corruption.

The Buckley logic is unconvincing because the Court chose not to say that Congress could not be trusted to decide what "might" be corrupting. But that's where I think Justice Black had it right. We should read "shall make no law" to mean "shall make no law," and, because it costs money to engage in speech, a law restricting contributions of money is a law restrict the freedom of the press.

That is the result SCOTUS seems to want. The justices just don't want to come right out and say "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" So they pretend that PACs can't corrupt, when we all know that they can. As the old pseudo-Confucianism has it, small inaccuracy avoid large explanation.