Because only the well-funded can establish precedent. At least until Dobson, precedent was generally applicable, respected by lower courts and enforced on police and prosecutors.

Interesting, but that being said, if the defense does prevail, the precedents that’ll be set will likely broaden the range of shady things that can be paid for during a political campaign. Probably not a good thing for average folks.

Precedent can be and is open to change - and should be in the case of bad precedent - and did you mean Dobbs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...