Money, the Supreme Court insisted again today, is speech. Today's McCutcheon v. FEC decision doubled down on its Citizens United ruling from 2010 — one that made corporate personhood a legal reality in the United States, only reversible only by a Constitutional amendment.

As of today, donors will be able to directly donate up to $1.2 million to a single political candidate of his or her choosing.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion, calls on Congress to fix it, saying they should limit how much political action committees (yes, PACs) are allowed to give to any single candidate.

"There are multiple alternatives available to Congress that would serve the Government's anti-circumvention interest," he writes in his decision.

But that obfuscates or ignores the most crucial point of all: It is not one individual Congressman or politician that is working against the American people.

It is the system itself — and the two parties within it — that invites corruption and gives the rich a direct line to lawmakers, and leaves the poor increasingly helpless and out in the cold.

Of course, the court knows this, but it is unbudging. It is, after all, born of appointments from increasingly partisan presidents reenforcing a broken two-party system. It is adherent to the same failing, binary processes that brought us an historically unpopular Congress — even if the justices continue to insist that it isn't.

So why do we give the Supreme Court such cultural esteem? And what would happen if we stopped?

The majority decision does describe an America where a donor is able to effectively pay off a Congressman or political party in exchange for support of special interest legislation when he or she takes office — and then it has written that idea off entirely. It has concluded that this does not happen.

But it happens. All the time. We know it to be a reality. It is precisely why we're in the mess we're in, where corporate officers are avoiding jail time and given raises for breaking the law and effectively tanking the economy.

That man who received a raise, Jamie Dimon, is the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, the 15th biggest spender in campaign contributions in the last 15 years.

Fifty-one percent of that lobbying money went to Republicans. Forty-eight percent went to Democrats.

JPMorgan Chase did not buy a candidate or a party. They bought the entire thing.

This is not an exception to the rule. This is not an edge case. This is the rule. The Supreme Court today made it easier for it to happen on a grander scale, all of the time.

But, still, we levy upon them the greatest regard.

Why? Is it the legend-making scarcity techniques that marketers now teach in schools? Most justices do not frequently give interviews, except to those that will evangelize their work. Cameras are still not allowed in Supreme Court proceedings, and when pictures leak out, it's national news.

Is it the robes?

Or is it that we need to feel like there is a quiet, impermeable level hand at the top, even if we know in our hearts that this cannot be true?

In the dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer had to outline bribery and corruption like one would to a child.

"Will elected officials be particularly grateful to the large donor, feeling obliged to provide him special access and influence, and perhaps even a quid pro quo legislative favor?" he writes. "That is what we have previously believed."

Again, all of this would seem obvious, except the United States Supreme Court voted against it today, 5-4.

The majority decision also didn't take into account the power of any technology, from the Internet to the television all the way back to the talk radio. All of the machinations that help create the noise necessary for a tyranny of the majority are only available to a privileged few.

Only the rich have access to these firehoses — the only real opportunity for an exponential swing in public opinion — but this is never addressed.

At best, this is now an institution unwilling or incapable of accessing the gray area the new economy now demands in order to thrive. At worst, we have nine immovable partisan objects.

Either way, we've deified Supreme Court Justices, and the majority of them are no longer overseeing a level playing field for every American.

We are now in a position where, sometime in our future, like an alien race, we will have to amend to the United States Constitution something like this: "No corporation or group entity will be considered a person, or be given the rights allotted to any person previously described within this document."

It will look so funny on paper to the people reading it hundreds of years from now. They'll read down it asking, "And these people ran the world?"

Yes. At one point, we did.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io