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)
“Next they will proclaim that Ford appointee Justice Stevens is a far out leftist.” – swarthmoremom
swarthmoremom,
Yes, “a far out leftist” and “dangerous”, even, according to some.
“Justice Stevens is the one who wants to amend the Constitution to take our rights away. Not sure I am following him.”
Laughing…
I have seen the changes to the Constitution by Justice Stevens, one is that only militia could be armed. If you Google news him several articles have the changes to the Constitution he is suggesting. However, it would never get through. He is asking for limited campaign spending as an amendment.
Since campaign finance is regulated by the FEC and related code of federal regulations it too can be amended….
Paul said: “There is no “War on Elaine” for all of you paranoids out there.”
One man’s “paranoia” is another man’s “heightened awareness”, Paul. 🙂
rafflaw – since the ACA is legislation it can be amended, defunded or overturned. And there are a couple of court cases in the pipeline that might do just that, using a different tack. This particular case is a freedom of speech issue which may or may not come up again. But we probably will not see it for awhile. So beating our heads against the wall one way or the other is not going to help.
I am sure you are aware that the Supreme Court does not count the number of amicus briefs on one side and weighs them against the number on the other side and then decides the case. They weigh the actual arguments. Whether you or I agree with the arguments they accept is neither here nor there.
Have you read Justice Steven’s book Paul? What rights is he suggesting be taken away? The right of unlimited campaign spending that was actually created by the Supreme Court?
Paul,
First of all, what you consider as parroting similar opinions or evidence on a subject does add to the weight of the argument one or more people are making. Secondly, it is not your job, or my job to decide how one presents their opinion. Thirdly, yes the Supreme court has “spoken”, but the Supreme court deciding on an issue hasn’t stopped the House from voting approximately 50 times to defund the ACA after the Roberts Court approved its constitutionality.
You are welcome, ap. Next they will proclaim that Ford appointee Justice Stevens is a far out leftist.
(Paul. I have a pretty good grip on “the answer”…,”grasshopper”. Now, have a good day.)
Thanks for the links, swarthmoremom.
Back when we were the Exceptional Nation and we tried all the Nazi criminals and, perhaps not criminals, at Nuremberg after WWII we went after the Nazi secret police, army, navy, police, and judges. If you Google search: The Judges Trial you will see how we prosecuted for crimes against humanity guys like Roberts. If an Exceptional collection of Nations States were to hold Nuremburg Trials today for crimes against humanity the collection of defendants could include: Cheney, Bushie, Roberts and all the CIA, NSA and some FBI chiefs. They could go back and begin with the crimes of McUltra, Cointel, and go forward to today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/us/politics/justice-stevenss-prescription-for-giant-step-in-wrong-direction.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0
I appreciate the help on the war on Elaine…… I am pleased that there are others whom feel the same way that don’t mind defending another’s point of view….. It appears we have a bully puppet….
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-paul-stevens-campaign-finance-mccutcheon-john-roberts
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens is taking aim at the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision to eliminate the limit on a person’s aggregate expenditures to political candidates and committees in an election cycle.
“The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate,” he told the New York Times, criticizing what he views as the premise of Chief Justice John Roberts’ controlling opinion. “It’s really wrong.”
Before he retired in 2010, Stevens was outspoken in defending the legality of campaign finance limits. Most famously he wrote the scathing dissent against the Citizens United ruling that opened the floodgates for unlimited independent expenditures to influence elections. Now he’s taking aim at the McCutcheon v. FEC, written by Roberts, in which the same five justices dealt another blow to campaign finance regulations.
Stevens told the Times’ Adam Liptak that the very first sentence of Roberts’ opinion — “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” — was misleading. “The first sentence here is not really about what the case is about,” the former justice said.
He posited that the decisive opinion reflected “an incorrect view of the law” but allowed that it was consistent with the reasoning in Citizens United. “The opinion,” he said, “has the merit of being faithful to the notion that money is speech and that out-of-district money has the same First Amendment protection as in-district money.”
Stevens tore into Roberts and the Supreme Court’s conservative tilt in a separate interview with New Yorker legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
“Sam Alito replacing Justice O’Connor was a very significant change,” he told the magazine in an article for its forthcoming issue. “He is much more conservative. And, as for John Roberts, he is much more in the direction of protecting the rights of very rich people to donate money to campaigns than [former Chief Justice] Bill Rehnquist ever was.”
Stevens, who turned 94 on Sunday, has written a new book called “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution” that’s due to be released this week. “
Justice Stevens is the one who wants to amend the Constitution to take our rights away. Not sure I am following him.
rafflaw – the sheer number of people parroting the same thing does not add to the weight of the argument. And as I have said, and you should agree, for right now, the Supreme Court has spoken.
Paul,
Please concentrate on a person’s arguments as opposed to complaining about how they are presenting their evidence. Evidence that proves one’s point from several different sources may be similar, but the sheer numbers of the expert opinions adds to the weight of the argument.
Paul Schulte wrote: “ap – I am here because of people like you.”
And what kind of person would that be, “Paul”?
ap – you must search within yourself for the answer to that, grasshopper. 😉
Bullies abound… here, there… and on the streets of America.
(I hate them too, Annie.)
If the shoe fits, right?
ap – I am here because of people like you. 🙂
Said with a smile. Of course.
Well, you’ve met your match, “Paul”.
Annie – if ap is my match I surely cannot be bullying. Bullying would be trying to guilt people into leaving the site because they do not agree with the consensus. Or calling them names, or baiting them. At what point have I bullied you, Annie?
I HATE bullying Paul. Do you realize that you and Spinelli are engaging in it?