It’s also worth noting that the decision explicitly addressed the question of corruption, and concluded that unlimited spending on campaigns could not create corruption, or even “the appearance of corruption.”
There was precedent that even if actual corruption was not happening, just things seeming corrupt could erode faith in our institutions and in democracy. So they had to address this and claim that unlimited campaign contributions in exchange for favorable treatment by the new administration wouldn’t even appear corrupt. They did that by redefining corruption to mean only an explicit quid pro quo, where what each side would do was spelled out, and not just a general “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” arrangement, which under this new definition would be totally fine. So the government could openly cater to the needs of moneyed special interests instead of those of the people, and that definitely wouldn’t make the public feel that government no longer represented their interests.
Talk about “egregiously wrong from the start.”
Doesn’t even need to. He’s been frequently citing polls carried out by CPAC, which show him having a 93% approval rating. Why bother with troublesome reality?