(d) The relevant factors in deciding whether to adhere to stare decisis, beyond workability—the precedent’s antiquity, the reliance interests at stake, and whether the decision was well reasoned—counsel in favor of abandoning Austin, which itself contravened the precedents of Buckley and Bellotti. As already explained, Austin was not well reasoned. Where is the explanation of the flaw in the reasoning of Hammer v Dagenhard in Darby?
They simply declare it to be wrong without providing any evidence to support that findig, and go from there.
You are quoting from a brief. Read the Citizens United opinions for how those concerns are treated by the Court.