Cross-post: TWO NEW SUPREME COURT CASES WILL AFFECT FUTURE ELECTIONS

[Nothing Without Hope]

Please join the discussion in the main thread on this in the General Discussion Forum, which has the link to the LA Times article and a four-paragraph excerpt:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x522832
thread title (2-26-06 GD): LATimes: "Supreme Court will hear TWO ELECTION LAW CASES" -big effects
Excerpt: “Tiny Vermont, a true blue state, hopes to restore small-town democracy by greatly limiting the role of money in politics. If its new spending caps win before the high court, they could change how campaigns are conducted across the nation. Meanwhile, Texas, the biggest of the red states, is defending its right to redraw its electoral districts to give its GOP majority more seats in Congress. If its extraordinary mid-decade shift wins in the high court, other states have signaled they will do the same.”

[iconocrastic]

1. Personally, I'd support disclosure, not limits

Not sure, but I felt McCain-Feingold hurt us more than helped us. Enter the Swift Boats.

The Repukes ran a small-town" candidate - Bob Dole - and the country was not impressed.

Politics is about money - business and spending and taxes. How can a no-money philosophy compete in that arena? Point is, money will find it's way into the process somehow. I'd rather it be clean money rather than back-door money.

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. kick n /t