I hope Lionel addresses this distinction further, but what’s at issue in this case is not direct contributions to candidates but independent expenditures that advocate for or against a federal candidate. This isn’t about whether Apple can contribute $1 million to Nancy Pelosi’s re-election but whether Apple can run a $1 million ad campaign saying Nancy Pelosi has been good or bad for Silicon Valley and should (or should not) be re-elected.

Brad Smith, the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, and a former FEC Chairman, spoke on this issue today at a panel discussion about this case at the Cato Institute. This distinction was addressed at length.

Furthermore, it’s important to recognize the actual purpose behind the 102-year-old statute cited here: the Tillman Act of 2007.

Brad Smith addressed this related issue on Citizens United v. FEC in a recent Washington Examiner op-ed:

“Reformers,” also bemoan the demolition of a “century-old statute.” In fact, the Tillman Act of 1907, held up by campaign finance reformers as the sacred law banning corporate contributions, is — as one would expect of a 100-year-old law — outdated and out of step with modern politics and technology.

It was passed at a time when corporations were new and uncommon. Today, nearly every corner barber shop and non-profit organization is incorporated.

The Tillman Act’ssponsor was Sen. “Pitchfork” Benjamin Tillman (D-SC), a notorious racist and proponent of Jim Crow laws. He pushed the corporate contribution ban as a way to kneecap corporations opposed to his agenda because they did not want the added expense of providing separate accommodations for different races or restrictions on hiring black workers.

Campaign finance regulations are often about politicians or interests limiting dissent, silencing critics, and protecting their power — not promoting reform or curbing corruption.