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)
AP, Indeed!
Annie – I know that you, Elaine and AY backstop each other all the time. I have no problem with that. ap – I am here because of people like you. 🙂
Exactly AP. I suspect I would rather have had Elaine as a teacher for my children and grandchildren above other teachers here. Elaine, I know I’ve also told you this before, I appreciate the effort and clarity you put into your blog posts, I’m sure most here would agree. Thanks Elaine for what you do and who you are. If I emulated anyone it would be you.
“However, I think it would not hurt you to realize what it is you are doing and take stock of that. It is the teacher in me, Elaine.”
Oh, puh-lease.
Many of us appreciate Elaine’s style, postings, etc. and like her followup articles and links, as well.
One has to wonder why some folks are here?
Elaine,
Nick had a question, well with the other dribble one wouldn’t know….. I’m probably getting reported for this….
Elaine,
Charlton might be best to answer this….. Is a person with multiple personalities able to answer for the other?
“What’s the big deal?” Well, that’s mostly a rhetorical question, but this is the US, anyone is free to reply or not.
Paul,
Nick didn’t address the question to anyone by name. Did he tell you that his question was directed to me?
Elaine – I took it as directed to you or AY.
Elaine,
I think it’s called respect….. But not all folks know what that really means…
Ask Paul.
Elaine – Nick’s question is directed to you. It is not mine to answer.
The Tyson thread is a recent example of “beating a dead horse.” There are many others. But, here’s the thing, in a libertarian’s mind a person has a right to point out something that bothers them, and the other person has a right to say “tough titty.” That is what has occurred here and I think it’s healthy. What’s the big deal?
The Lions of Discord have returned
Paul,
You’re the one who has been kvetching all morning. You don’t like the way I do things–then don’t read my posts. Or maybe you’d prefer to write to Jonathan with a list of complaints about me–and suggest to him that he tell me to change the way I do things at RIL.
The newest decision is based upon legislation which can be overturned as well…. Pick and choose what you support much….
Easter’s over. Civility too, I see.
You know Paul….. Elaine may not be able to respond in kind…. But if you don’t like the post, thread, blog and/or people you are welcome to move on at anytime you want….. You just started attacking Elaine…. But you have a buddy that attacks every post Elaine does….. Maybe you need a new line of work or a break….
Elaine – actually, I am commenting on your style. I think I have very civilly explained my position about your style. I have even complimented you. Unlike some others I do not like running to mommy or daddy to have them settle things. I do not think you are going to change. However, I think it would not hurt you to realize what it is you are doing and take stock of that. It is the teacher in me, Elaine. As you know, it never goes away. 😉
AY,
Some people aren’t happy unless they’re complaining about my postings or my comments. Maybe they should start their own blogs.
Elaine – if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. 😉
I love it… And the ACA is the law of the land to…. The courts have spoken…
Well, it is the law of the land only as a tax, which the Obama administration swore up and down it wasn’t. Still, Roberts went there. However, the ACA is legislation, not a Constitutional right, it can be overturned or modified.
Elaine,
Methinks you have an ardent admirer ….. Stalker or another paradox of a former stalker…..
Elaine – the opinions you are posting are all the same. They could have been written in a backroom somewhere. There is no real variety in the opinions. Whether they are from legal scholars or pundits, though, it makes no difference. The court has spoken and for the time being it is the law of the land.
Paul Schulte
“Elaine – my mind picks up patterns. When you have a thread (I guess that is what we would call this), you continually fertilize it with more and more liberal postings backing up your original take on the subject. This morning you dropped four new ones? More? You are the only blogger who works like that. Everyone else might (and I say might) add new material if they are refuting a particular argument from somebody.”
*****
I post opinions by different people–some, on this thread, were written by lawyers/legal scholars.
I’m the only blogger who works like this? So what? I don’t mind being different from other people/bloggers.
**********
Paul Schulte
“Where most threads die after a day, you seem to keep yours going, resurrecting it with new (rehashed material). I think you kept that one going for 10 days. I was personally impressed. That was a major effort.”
*****
Which post would that be? And why do you find it bothersome that I add new comments to a post that may be several days old?
Elaine – I think I said I was impressed. 🙂