"The kind of corruption the media talk about, the kind the Supreme Court was concerned about, involves the putative sale of votes in exchange for campaign contributions"

James L. Buckley, in this quote, addresses a specific aspect of political corruption that is typically highlighted in media conversations and legal issues: the quid professional quo relationship between political campaign contributions and legislative votes. The term "putative sale of votes" indicates a believed or alleged transaction where lawmakers might prefer specific policies or decisions in exchange for financial support, essentially selling their votes. This type of corruption is troublesome for several reasons.

First of all, it undermines the democratic principles of equality and fairness. In a democratic system, each vote is supposed to represent the interests and voices of constituents. Nevertheless, when votes can be "sold" to the highest bidder, generally effective corporations or wealthy donors, it can lead to policies that prefer the wealthy at the cost of the public. The result is a distortion of democratic procedures and a loss of trust in political organizations.

Second of all, Buckley's reference of the Supreme Court highlights the legal measurement of this issue. The court has actually been associated with many cases addressing campaign finance laws, such as the landmark Citizens United v. FEC decision, which opened the floodgates for increased political spending by corporations and unions. This decision and others like it are grounded in the concept of complimentary speech but likewise raise concerns about the potential for increased corruption and excessive influence in politics.

The "kind of corruption the media speak about" suggests that this is a well-recognized problem, frequently covered due to its implications for governance and public policy. Media protection plays a substantial function in informing the public and holding authorities accountable. However, the relentless focus on this problem also shows the continuous struggle to find a balance in between legitimate political contributions and the prevention of corruption.

In essence, Buckley's declaration underscores a critical obstacle in modern politics: guaranteeing that democratic institutions stay representative and untainted by financial interests, something that requires vigilance from both the legal system and the general public.