Justice Stevens’s Solution for ‘Giant Step in Wrong Direction’ (Citizens United)

[n2doc]

WASHINGTON — Justice John Paul Stevens, who turned 94 on Sunday, is a mild man with an even temperament. He has a reverence for the Supreme Court, on which he served for almost 35 years until his retirement in 2010, and he is fond of his former colleagues.

But there was a hint of anger in some of his remarks when I went to see him last week in his Supreme Court chambers. He said the court had made a disastrous wrong turn in its recent string of campaign finance rulings.

“The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate,” he said. “It’s really wrong.”

He talked about what he called a telling flaw in the opening sentence of last month’s big campaign finance ruling. He filled in some new details about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to the Citizens United decision. And he called for a constitutional amendment to address what he said was the grave threat to American democracy caused by the torrent of money in politics.

more

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/us/politics/justice-stevenss-prescription-for-giant-step-in-wrong-direction.html?hp

[n2doc]

1. kick n/t

[DirkGently]

2. A U.S. Supreme Court Justice lives! n/t

[Jefferson23]

3. ..he called for a constitutional amendment...

It is that obvious to those without an agenda.

K&R

[Bandit]

5. Right!!!! A Super Majority in Congress must first pass it and then two thirds of all states

must ratify it. I doubt that is ever going to happen.

[BrotherIvan]

4. Public Financing of elections

That is the only thing I can think of. Our country is so damned depressing...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. I'm not keen on this passage --

{In} an exchange at the first Citizens United argument, when a government lawyer told the court that Congress could in theory ban books urging the election of political candidates.

Justice Stevens said he would not go that far.

“Perhaps you could put a limit on the times of publication or something,” he said. “You certainly couldn’t totally prohibit writing a book.”

Um. What?

He thinks it is okay for Congress to limit how many times a book can be published?

[Jim Lane]

7. I think he meant "times" as in "when" it was published, not how often.

For example, a law might state that spending to publish a book that comes out within 60 days before an election and that endorses or promotes or disparages a candidate is considered to be campaign spending, and the book can't be published during that time period if the spender has already reached a spending limit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Still unacceptable.

Such ideas only serve those in power.

[Jim Lane]

10. Your post highlights a dilemma of campaign finance reform.

Putting aside the First Amendment issues, what are the practical effects?

* If there are no spending limits, then the rich have disproportionate influence.

* If there are spending limits, then incumbents, who usually have greater name recognition and will get ongoing free media by virtue of their official duties, have an advantage over challengers.

Critics of campaign finance reform have sometimes referred to such bills as "incumbents' protection acts" because limits are a greater burden on nonincumbents.

I don't know if any entity (U.S. state or city, or foreign country) has experimented with unequal limits -- allowing a challenger to spend 20% more than an incumbent, for example. That might have merit but would raise its own problems.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. A fair statement of the paradoxes.

I can't help but wonder if term limits might alleviate some of this.

[Romulox]

9. Is he senile? There's not going to be any amendment. nt