But the Court’s logic was correct, if you understand precisely what Justice Kennedy was saying. If the expenditure is independent, then there is no risk of a quid pro quo. Or put differently, if there is a quid pro quo, then the expenditures are obviously not independent. The point Justice Kennedy was making was a logical claim, not a claim about what happens in the real world. In the real world, if somebody makes an independent expenditure that is not actually independent, then the law deems that expenditure an illegal contribution, and the entity making that expenditure is liable for criminal prosecution. But in the land of logic, which is where the Supreme Court was operating when it made its decision in Citizens United, an “independent” expenditure does not create the risk of a quid pro quo—because it is “independent.”
