Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
First, there was Citizens United. Now, we have the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the McCutcheon case. It does appear that our country’s campaign finance laws may have been “eviscerated”—as noted by Justice Breyer when he wrote that, taken together with Citizens United, McCutcheon “eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”
Corporations are people…money is speech. The more money one has to spend…the more “speech” one can afford to buy—especially where political campaigns are concerned.
Dahlia Lithwick (Slate), in writing about Chief Justice John Roberts after the court’s ruling in the McCutcheon case, said that it seemed weird: “The man takes the Metro to work, and yet he handily dismisses what every human American knows to be true: That if dollars are speech, and billions are more speech, then billionaires who spend money don’t do so for the mere joy of making themselves heard, but because it offers them a return on their investment.”
Amy Davidson (The New Yorker) said that Roberts relied on a very narrow measure of corruption in the McCutcheon ruling: “Ingratiation and access … are not corruption.” She added that the argument, in effect, is that political parties themselves cannot be corrupted: “There is a clear, administrable line between money beyond the base limits funneled in an identifiable way to a candidate—for which the candidate feels obligated—and money within the base limits given widely to a candidate’s party—for which the candidate, like all other members of the party, feels grateful.”
Roberts wrote, “Congress may target only a specific type of corruption—‘quid pro quo’ corruption.” Roberts explains what isn’t “quid pro quo” with regard to spending large sums of money on elections:
Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties. And because the Government’s interest in preventing the appearance of corruption is equally confined to the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, the Government may not seek to limit the appearance of mere influence or access.
SOURCES
Justice Roberts Hearts Billionaires: The chief either doesn’t believe, or doesn’t care, that money corrupts politics. (Slate)
A Blistering Dissent in ‘McCutcheon’: Conservatives Substituted Opinion for Fact (Moyers & Company)
Justice Roberts Defends the Embattled Rich in McCutcheon (The New Yorker)
The John Roberts Project (The New Yorker)
Raff,
As you can see…. I’m the one that should be scolded….. Paul and Nick are pure…. They would never provoke or bait anyone….. I am the one that should be admonished…..
Paul,
No one person dictates what anyone on this blog wants to discuss. If you don’t like what someone is saying, move along and choose a different thread or ignore them.
Ever seen hangover RTC? I maybe could have added a few chapters…..
AY: What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas
AY – the answer submitted does not answer the question asked. If an appropriate answer is not forthcoming then it means that the statement is without proof.
Dogs train their “masters” quite well.
AY — the answer was not an answer to that question. He did prove that Obama had violated his oath of office though. 🙂
RTC – we redefined the use of tools. Dogs use humans as tools. Wolves do not. My dog comes to get me to either be fed or let out. I am her tool. Not always a compliant tool, but still her tool.
RTC,
You make shooting heroin and consorting with prostitutes sound like its a bad thing….
Paul,
You are the one whom stated it….. Be a big boy and run along…
Paul,
That was answered yesterday….. Comprehension is not your strongest….. Is it….
Those chimps better not fashion sticks into guns or they will be ousted from the jungle by virtue of the zero tolerance policy.
And after some conversation on the matter, I’m prepared to say that I may have been wrong about Soros, though I’d stipulate that he hasn’t been seen in quite a while. That’s the result of having an open mind and strong-sense reasoning.
It’s pretty certain that Breitbart, however, is very dead, and good riddance. There is an overwhelming abundance of proof concerning Breitbart’s mendacity. Small children and farm animals know the guy wasn’t to be trusted. Maybe you want get on board? Trust me on this, you’ll sound much more intelligent if you never mention his name again.
I’m kidding, I know you’ll bring up his name every chance you get.
BTW, since we’re referring to other threads today, remember how you said none of Jane Goodall’s studies related to humans? Turns out, when she discovered that chimps fashioned twigs to be used as tools, Dr. Leakey declared that we must redefine humans, or tools, or include chimps in our definition of humans. And that was only the start of Goodall’s insights into our understanding of humans.
But let me guess, Breitbart turned up evidence that Leakey was a well known communist who used heroin and consorted with prostitutes.
Anonymously Yours
Paul,
“At the risk of being banned…. Quit baiting….”
*****
Paul Schulte
“ap – AY spent yesterday complaining about my commenting on Elaine style. Now today he is commenting on my style.”
*****
Paul,
Are you admitting that “your style” is baiting people?
Elaine – the answer to your question is no. Just because AY made the comment does not make it correct.
I think Justice Stevens is really dead and Laurence Tribe is ghostwriting for him.
We know that “anyone can play” — that’s the way it works!
AY gets “to play” in any discussion that he chooses, albeit in a civil fashion. And the civility thing cuts both ways. That’s the way it works! (-;
RTC wrote:
“Hey Schulte: If you want to have a private conversation with someone, get their email, or in Dredd’s case, go to his blog. This is a public chatroom, where there is no such thing as eavesdropping.
If you make a comment, be prepared for a response from any quarter.”
Yep, RTC… took the words right out of my mouth.
ap – AY spent yesterday complaining about my commenting on Elaine style. Now today he is commenting on my style. If AY or you or any one else want to play along the question under discussion is “Exactly how did Chief Justice Roberts violate his oath of office?”
Regarding quoting Breitbart. He’s dead.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=breitbart&GSfn=andrew&GSbyrel=all&GSdy=2012&GSdyrel=in&GSob=n&GRid=86040288&df=all&
Charlton – RTC thought Soros was dead, too, remember?
Elaine – if you are going to rely on liberal sources, I will rely on conservative sources.
RTC,
At least Breitbart.com isn’t a librul rag!
😉
Hey Schulte: If you want to have a private conversation with someone, get their email, or in Dredd’s case, go to his blog. This is a public chatroom, where there is no such thing as eavesdropping.
If you make a comment, be prepared for a response from any quarter.
BTW, Breitbart?! You’ve just effectively admitted that you condone utter dishonesty and widespread lying. Basically, you might as well admit to being a liar, yourself, if you’re going to repeat anything that guy or his followers had to say
RTC – you have not been playing along, so I will bring you up to speed. Dredd and I have been having a public discussion regarding Chief Justice Roberts. AY – is not part of that discussion, but can play if he wants, just as you can if you want.
BTW, that is a pretty broad brush you are painting with regarding Breitbart. Care to back it up with some proof?