Must-read Matea Gold in WaPo:

“You just see that everything that goes on behind the scenes confirms people’s worst fears: that someone can swear that there’s no quid pro quo and no deals, but it’s very hard to know if that’s true, and it depends in your confidence in politicians to tell the truth,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine who studies campaign finance regulation.,,,

But advocates of loosening campaign finance restrictions said that just because Melgen may have thought he could influence Menendez through super PAC donations does not mean the senator actually was compromised, even if he knew about the donations.

“Gratitude is not corruption,” said conservative election law attorney James Bopp Jr. “Was there an exchange that is related to the super PAC? And if there was, then it would be corrupting. . . . But there is nothing inherently corrupting in somebody who wants favors or likes somebody giving money to super PAC.”

We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the decision.

“There is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate,” he added. “Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption.”

Hasen said that the Menendez case shows the court’s flawed logic. “It’s impossible to ensure independence, because a deal like this could have been kept secret from the super PAC,” he said.