In this Supreme Court, any lawyer who dares to defend a campaign finance law knows they have little chance of prevailing. And Wednesday’s oral argument on one of the few remaining safeguards against excessive money in politics was no exception.

The unfortunate soul tasked with defending a niche but important anti-corruption law was Malcolm Stewart, a veteran advocate and deputy solicitor general of the United States. But at least five of the Court’s six Republican appointees displayed no openness to Stewart’s arguments, and no fear of the very real possibility that rejecting his arguments would effectively legalize bribery.