Do you think that Congress represents your interests?

How you answer that question is probably going to depend on your outlook, ideology, and social position.

But as Congress is increasingly dominated by the wealthiest Americans, and out-of-touch ones at that, Americans are rapidly losing faith in our political system.

Then add to the recipe, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case that opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate and union Super PAC spending.

Now the Supremes are are at it again.

On Wednesday the Supreme Court ruled on a campaign finance case called McCutcheon v. FEC. Here an Alabama businessman and political activist was challenging a federal law that limits the aggregate individual donations of a citizen during an election cycle. His claim was that this was a violation of his First Amendment’s free speech protections.

Before the ruling, federal law barred any individual from contributing more than $123,200 to candidates and party committees during an election cycle.

That limit has been thrown out by the court, although there is still a limit ($2600) on what an individual can give to a single candidate.

The decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, depended on the idea that removing limits for wealthy donors doesn’t create “quid pro quo corruption” or its appearance.

In Chief Justice Roberts’ words:

Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties.

Do you agree? Do members of Congress favor the interests of their wealthy donors, and is that corrupt?

Should the government regulate political contributions at all? 

Feel free to leave a comment about your thoughts on the issue. But remember, since money is speech, the richest commenter wins.