Citizens United contradictions

New York Times editorial today:

There is something supremely cynical about the notion among Republican conservatives that they could use their ability to make unlimited contributions to “super PACs” and shadowy social-welfare groups to buy an election (emphasis mine). It views voters as a flock of sheep, easily hypnotized by misleading ads, willing to believe whatever wealthy industrialists tell them about taxes, jobs and health care.

New York Times editorial on June 25, 2012:

The Supreme Court examined the Arizona immigration law in minute detail, but when it came to revisiting the damage caused by its own handiwork in the 2010 Citizens United case, it couldn’t be bothered. In a single dismissive paragraph on Monday, the court’s conservative majority refused to allow Montana or any other state to impose limits on corporate election spending and wouldn’t even entertain arguments on the subject. 

...Congress can — and should — require disclosure of secret donations. The Internal Revenue Service should crack down on political organizations that pose as tax-exempt “social welfare” organizations to avoid current disclosure rules. But, for now, the nation’s highest court has chosen to turn its back as elections are bought by the biggest check writers.

The supreme cynicism is entirely on the part of the Times, which earlier this year claimed that elections could simply be purchased. After the latest round of elections proved this theory false once again, the paper -- rather than admit its mistake and the misplaced hysteria over the Citizens United decision -- simply turned around and assigned this logic to that of their opponents. As Bill Clinton might say, that takes some brass.