The court must then explain its abandonment of, or at least qualify reliance upon, the proposition that the identity of the speaker is an impermissible basis for regulating campaign speech…It will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection for some nonvoters than that of other nonvoters.

—In a speech at the University of Arkansas, Ex-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens took aim at the court’s conservative bloc for inconsistently applying the law in its controversial decision on campaign finance reform in the 2010 case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  Stevens wrote a blistering dissent in that case, and on Wednesday he revisited the decision that gave outsized influence to corporations, advocacy groups and wealthy individuals in political campaigns.