Of the several constitutional amendments favored by Justice Stevens, the one dealing with campaign finance reform strikes Cass Sunstein as “the strongest.” Cass Sunstein, The Refounding Father, N.Y. Review of Books Vol. LXI, No. 10 (June 5, 2014) at 10.  He argues that without controls on political spending, income inequality will beget political inequality.  Especially because we are prepared to accept vast inequality in the economic sphere, we cannot tolerate it in our politics. To the extent that we might worry about incumbent entrenchment if politicians are empowered to set the rules of the game, we should take comfort that the workings of the political process—“democratic debate”—will supply the necessary safeguards.

In the growing press about polarization on the Supreme Court, campaign finance cases are cited as leading indicators and McCutcheon as a clinching bit of proof. The argument comes in two different versions. In the standard form, the Court is simply charged with dividing, routinely and reflexively, along partisan lines. A pointed variant is that the Court majority has exhibited something like fierce ideological bias, demonstrating through its campaign finance and voting rights cases that it will favor the rich donor but won’t protect the average, poor or minority voter.

A recent conversation with progressive scholars and activists about campaign finance reform certainly left no doubt about their widespread frustration.  The question before them is how the regulatory system’s steep fall can be broken.  Because the courts have been an obstacle for so long, and alarm is high in the aftermath of McCutcheon, one hope is that the legislature will eventually take matters in hand with more “deference” paid to their special expertise in framing rules targeted at corruption or its appearance.

Justice Stevens delivered brief testimony to the Senate Rules Committee, taking no questions. Maybe no exchange with the committee members was needed: he said little that was surprising or required elaboration.  He had made public before his proposed constitutional amendment and the analysis he offered in support of it closely followed his lengthy dissent in Citizens United. As a retired justice, displaying extraordinary energy and commitment, he certainly brings attention to his cause, but he won’t convince many not already in his corner, and the weaknesses in his case will be turned against the project, whatever its merits, of moving a constitutional amendment.

Here are three recent lines of argument about campaign finance, two of them in response to McCutcheon and one of them about the escalating conflict between the FEC Commissioners.  Each is interesting in its own way; they are also constituent parts of the basic, most frequently heard defense of the Watergate-era regulatory program.