National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n · ¶132

So today’s supposed stare decisis analysis mainly just recounts why the majority, had it been the majority in 2001, would have decided Colorado II differently. Almost to flaunt the point, the analysis gives pride of place to JUSTICE THOMAS’s dissent in that case; if only the rest of the majority had been there to join him! See ante, at 23. Today’s decision thus can join the parade of those recently overruling established law because of a new majority’s new outlook on a consequential matter. Here, the subject is campaign finance law. See also Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 319 (2010) (overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990); overruling in part McConnell, 540 U. S., at 203–209); McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 202, 204 (overruling in part Buckley, 424 U. S., at 38); cf. Federal Election Comm’n v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U. S. 289, 313…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.