General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCharles P Pierce- The American Government Is Open For Corruption
The remarkable story of how we have come to privatize political corruption in this country reached another milestone today as the Supreme Court, John Roberts presiding, handed down its decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, effectively demolishing the aggregate, two-year limit on contributions by individuals, and taking a big chunk out of Buckley v. Valeo, the misbegotten 1976 decision that got the ball rolling in the first place. It was a 5-4 vote, with the court split exactly as it had in the Citizens United case. In writing the opinion for the court, Roberts further emphasized the equation of money with speech, and also seemed to agree with Anthony Kennedy's famous assertion in Citizens United that the ability of megadonors to shovel gobs of money into the election process,"We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." Roberts writes:
What's good for Koch Industries is good for Sheldon Adelson, I guess. Roberts goes on.
And John Roberts apparently resides on Neptune. And, in case you didn't get the point.
Having earlier argued that there was a First Amendment issue to be found in the aggregate limits because they hindered an individual's right to participate in the political process -- It is here helpful to note the everlasting irony of Antonin Scalia's view of Bush v. Gore. There is no individual right to vote, but an individual's right to purchase a candidate must be untrammeled -- but here, Roberts is saying it plain. To restrict money is to restrict speech. Period. And the only real legal restraint on the wholesale subletting of American democracy is John Roberts's strange devotion to "disclosure" as some sort of shaming mechanism within the electorate. Good luck with that one.
more
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/mccutcheon-decision-campaign-finance-040214
madaboutharry
(40,208 posts)is that Republicans in power actually believe that rich people should have more of a say in elections. They would most likely love to go back to restricting the right to vote to property owners. If they could get away with it, they would probably give people with over a certain about of money an extra vote.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)They will.
At this rate, there is nothing to stop them. America lets them take anything they want.
(Ten years ago, would you ever have believed we'd get to where we are today?)
CrispyQ
(36,457 posts)I wish I was completely joking.