There the judges asserted that "contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures [in elections] also cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption".
Two years ago, in Citizens United, the high court suggested that huge contributions would not corrupt candidates or create the appearance of corruption, because the money would go to technically independent expenditure committees.
Does it create the appearance of corruption?
Corruption and the appearance of corruption are here to stay.
Corruption or the appearance of corruption is rampant.
A healthy democracy must avoid even the appearance of corruption.
The "appearance" of access will not lead to the "appearance of corruption," let alone actual corruption.
"At worst, housekeeping committees may provide legal cover for corruption or engender the appearance of corruption".
The Buckley case focused largely on the danger of corruption or the appearance of corruption.
First and foremost, the McCutcheon case revolves around the issue of "corruption and the appearance of corruption".
But there is "one legitimate governmental interest for restricting campaign finances," he explained: "preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption".
