What Do Conservatives Know About Campaign Finance That Liberals Don't?

Nothing, except that they'll -- for now -- be receiving the bulk of the donations and for obvious reasons. Conservatives, the GOP, know they're the party of the rich.

This isn't a mystery. Anyone in America who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention.

Things might change -- the Democrats might become the party of the rich, uh, how? -- but for now the GOP has the bucks. About the only thing we can hope for is that David Weigel is not wrong in what he's reporting, that more transparency is baked into this latest decision:

What strikes me, from the majority opinion, is the embrace of the idea that the system of limits—the caps on how much donors could plug into campaigns and parties—was itself a detriment to disclosure.

"Disclosure of contributions also reduces the potential for abuse of the campaign finance system," writes John Roberts, quoting portions of Citizens United. "Disclosure requirements, which are justified by a governmental interest in 'providing the electorate with information' about the sources of election-related spending, may deter corruption 'by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity.' "

This theory finds common ground with liberals and their war against "dark money." When I called Republican attorney Jim Bopp, who's single-handedly worn down the campaign finance legal system with lawsuits (Citizens United among them), he suggested that McCutcheon would usher in new transparency.

I ain't buying it. Sure, we might know a bit more about who is helping who on the individual level, but please don't tell me the super-rich will back off of the scads they donate anonymously via the super PACs. Anonymous has a great appeal, and, besides, they can now do both!

We liberals, right?!? Well, vaccines, Africa...sure!

To be clear, Gates might be thought of as liberal, which is fine, but mostly he doesn't play the political game, so his riches are not in play, either way.