Still trying to understand how the government shutdown won't end? And why it seems so much worse this time around? The supreme court deserves some of the blame, too. The court's opinions governing money and politics in recent years have changed the political game dramatically, making politicians more accountable to wealthy donors than constituents.

Take PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who doesn't believe that democracy is worth it. In the last few years, he has put his money behind his belief. He is the main force behind a SuperPAC that invested heavily in Ted Cruz and others with extreme views, who have been the instigators of the shutdown.

Wealthy individuals have always had the capacity to influence politics, of course, but only after two key campaign finance cases – Wisconsin Right to Life and and Citizens United, have they been able to do it in such a large and blatant way.

Wisconsin Right to Life held that Congress could only restrict spending on campaign ads that directly encouraged voting for or against a particular candidate. After the 2007 ruling, groups started spending millions right before an election. The ads wouldn't use election-related language (no "vote for so and so"), but they would point out all the flaws and virtues of candidates around key issues. In this case, Justice Roberts ridiculed the argument that such spending might be corrupting: "enough is enough", he wrote in the official court opinion.

In the more famous 2010 Citizens United decision, Justice Kennedy proclaimed that unlimited outside corporate spending – even that which directly mentions a candidate's name and encourages or discourages a vote – doesn't corrupt. After Citizens United, unlimited money could go directly to a corporate entity that can tell people who to vote for, with names and polling places included.

Before these cases, people like Thiel and Koch spent money on other projects because it wasn't worth it to attempt to pour millions into politics. They played in politics, but didn't throw their full force behind their idiosyncratic views. Billionaires started spending much more after 2007 and, especially, 2010. Between 2006 and last year, outside spending on campaigns rose 388%, and it is still rising.

Thiel's dream of freedom from democracy is now coming true, thanks to Justices Roberts and Kennedy. His money (and Koch's) has been used to create what you might call "client legislators", who are dependent on a small group of very wealthy patrons for their political success.

Here's a sample of the activist groups pushing for shutdown:

SuperPAC Club for Growth Action spent over $5m on Tea Party darling Ted Cruz, the long shot candidate from Texas, so he could win a close primary in a runoff election and the general election. Thiel has historically been Club for Growth's Action top donor.

The Club for Growth Action SuperPAC also spent $2m to help conservative Pat Toomey beat Joe Sestak by 2% in the Pennsylvania senate race. Senator Toomey has said he will "call Obama's bluff" because there is zero risk of default.

The PAC Heritage Action ran critical online ads in the districts of 100 Republican legislators who were not supportive of defunding Obamacare.

The total ad spending of the Heritage Action PAC was not enough to seriously dent anyone in any of those districts, but the implicit threat was there. Any would-be primary candidate looks at these actions, looks at the donors behind these actions, and understands there is a direct political cost to opposing instransigence. A recipient of the Heritage Action attack ad knows that the Koch brothers are major Heritage funders (see today's report that they gave $500,000 to Heritage Action), and that the Koch brothers don't hesitate to engage in direct political action.

If the publicly passed campaign finance laws had not been struck down by the Supreme Court, Club for Growth Action would be illegal, and Heritage Action wouldn't have the SuperPAC threat to back up its small ad purchases. Before 2007, individuals like Peter Thiel and David Koch had to either spend the money personally – just them out there spending, without using a limited liability organization – or they had to use what's called a 527 organization. These 527s could accept unlimited money and spend unlimited money on particular races, but they had to steer clear of directly supporting or opposing candidates.

To be fair, money and politics never work in a directly straight line. There are Club for Growth Action supported candidates (like Republican Jeff Flake, the junior senator from Arizona), who are opposed to the shutdown tactic. And there are big money independent spending groups, like the Chamber of Commerce, who are spending on the other side. But you don't need a straight line in order to wield power.

Since the government shutdown, repeated polls have shown how unpopular it is. However, the public polling doesn't matter. Responsiveness to patrons, not the public, is the valued skill in public service.

And in case you think things can't get any worse, this week the supreme court held oral argument in a case that would make it even easier to be a patron – or a client – in American politics. The question in McCutcheon v. FEC is whether the law restricting the total amount any individual can contribute directly to all campaigns and parties is unconstitutional. The limit is now $123,000. Without an aggregate limit, Peter Thiel or David Koch could write a multi-million dollar check to a joint fundraising committee on the premise that it would be distributed in checks within the base contribution limits (eg $2,600 per candidate).

If the court strikes down the aggregate limits, expect more madness to come.

To Justice Roberts, I would say: enough is enough. I want my government back.