« Winning Political Strategy, Just Ask “The People” | Main | Gun Rights Decision »
June 28, 2008
Millionaires Amendment Struck Down
Posted by Tina
“Justices for Free Speech” Wall Street Journal
In Davis v. FEC, a 5-4 majority overturned a portion of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law that exempted the political opponents of rich candidates from the usual fund-raising limits in order to "level the playing field. ** Millionaires had to report expenditures within 24 hours, while their opponents were allowed greater coordination with political parties and could raise three times the usual $2,300 limit on individual contributions. ** Reformers justify the special rules for millionaires by crying fairness – an argument that Justice Samuel Alito dispatched in his majority opinion. ** "The argument that a candidate's speech may be restricted in order to 'level electoral opportunities' has ominous implications," he wrote, and is "antithetical to the First Amendment." ** If Congress can massage the rules to level the playing field for candidates of differing personal means, what's to stop Congress from doing it for other reasons and in other ways? Some candidates are celebrities, others have famous political names, and still others may be adored by the local newspaper. Should Congress level the field for their opponents too? No prior Court opinions, Justice Alito added, support the notion that reducing the "natural advantage" of rich candidates is a legitimate government objective.
Posted by Post Scripts at June 28, 2008 09:24 PM
Comments
I don't know whether I agree with this opinion or not. I guess I just don't much care. As long as huge amounts of money are used for campaigns, there will be corruption, no matter what the source of funds is. However, I am generally displeased with the Supreme Court making all these decisions, especially since it has become clear that the decisions are based on politics or social philosophies, rather than on precise Constitutional law. Many decisions, like rulings on abortion, affirmative action, and the detention of military enemies, have no basis whatsover in the Constitution. At least the recent decision about gun control laws does, since the right to bear arms really is mentioned in the Constitution, even though there was disagreement over whether it is an individual or collective (militias) right. Still, on that and virtually all the decisions in the past 10 or 20 years, it is discouraging that the opinions are not unanimous, and even more discouraging to realize that you can predict the individual opinions of the Supremes if you already know their philosophies and which president appointed them. It would be nice to think that the law is a rock-solid set of principles that any well-educated thinker would agree on once all the facts and arguments have been presented. However, with all these 5-4 type decisions, that is clearly not the case. You have virtually all the liberal justices appointed by Democrats on one side, and all the conservative justices appointed by Republicans on the other. It just bothers me that if the Constitution is so open to multiple subjective interpretations, it is not very reliable as a legal guide.
Posted by: Dan at June 29, 2008 08:16 AM
You have virtually all the liberal justices appointed by Democrats on one side, and all the conservative justices appointed by Republicans on the other.
Dan I wish the judges appointed by Republicans were all conservative, unfortunately both Reagan and GHW Bush appointed justices that sometimes swing the other way.
I hope you read at least part of the opinion on gun control that I posted last night. Scalia demonsrates so beautiful (in language you and I can easily get) how to decide whether or not a piece og legislation is consistent with the meaning of the Constitution.
You are so right about activism on the court, however based on my very limited knowledge it has been the liberal judges, those who believe in a "living document" that must change with the times, who have been political activists and overstepped their authority.
I'm glad to hear you are among those who believes strongly in our Constitution. Your voice matters!
Posted by: Tina at June 29, 2008 11:14 AM