Vermont Campaign Limits Get Cool Reception at Court (SCOTUS)

James Bopp Jr., arguing for the challengers to the law, a coalition that includes the Vermont Right-to-Life Committee, the Vermont Republican Party and the American Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court's ruling on the spending limits was incorrect as a matter of law.

That's a weird coalition, but I guess the ACLU is doing the bidding of Soros.

That's a weird coalition, but I guess the ACLU is doing the bidding of Soros.

Oh, the ACLU is in somebody's pocket, no doubt about that.
Soros is as good a guess as any.

I oppose campaign finance laws... all they do give an advantage to incumbents and deter potential challengers. That was the principle animating Mcain-Feingold. It was never about driving corruption out of politics. Corruptible acts are already punishable by law. I don't see how you clean up politics by squashing uninhibited and robust political speech.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

I imagine there are going to be many others to undergo a "...low-key but withering cross-examination..." from the Chief Justice.

sweet

Mr. Bopp said the Vermont limits were too low to permit meaningful campaigns, amounting to "an unprecedented restriction on speech."

Among his allies on the court was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. In past opinions, he has expressed serious doubts about limits about both spending and contributions, suggesting reliance on public disclosure instead.

"Let's assume that some members of the court simply accept the proposition that money buys access," Justice Kennedy said to Mr. Bopp. "It's a common-sense conclusion. I tend to think that money does buy access. But what follows from that?"

He then answered his own question. "Isn't the answer that voters can see what's going on and throw the incumbents out?"

With Kennedy and Roberts on the side of the angels here, there's a good chance this might be the beginning of the end for CFR.

Roberts is proving to be an excellent chief justice.

I'm not sure what is meant by "coalition," but the ACLU, the NRA, the RNC and the California Democratic Party, among others, were 'allies' united against BCFR before the SCOTUS

"Roberts is proving to be an excellent chief justice."

No kidding. I am loving this guy more and more. He does not suffer fools lightly. Kickin butt, takin names!!!

CFR won't last. I lay down a wager of a cup of coffee.

Fact: George Soros directly supports the ACLU: George Soros's Open Society Institute a $250,000 grant to the ACLU in 2001.

The ACLU has received funding from the Open Society Institute, the Arca Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Columbia Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the JEHT Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Lear Family Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago.

George Soros donated more than $7 million to The Tides for "Democratic Justice Fund". The Tides funnels money to most of the groups that pay "legal fees" to the ACLU.

Soros' Open Society Institute supports many leftist groups, among which are the following: the Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; the National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; the American Civil Liberties Union; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF); People for the American Way (PFAW); Alliance for Justice; the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL); the National Council of La Raza; the Center for Community Change; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Human Rights Watch; the Prison Moratorium Project; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the Immigrant Funders' Collaborative; the No Peace Without Justice International Committee; the National Lawyers Guild; the Center for Constitutional Rights; People of Color In Crisis; American Prospect; MoveOn.org; the Gay Straight Alliance Network; Project Hip-Hop; the Youth Law Center; Planned Parenthood; Jews for Racial and Economic Justice; the Rocky Mountain Peace Center; the Center for American Progress (CAP); the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission; Earth Rights International; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; the Nation Institute; the Violence Policy Center; Gun Violence Prevention; Critical Resistance - Beyond the Prison Industrial Complex; the Death Penalty Information Center; the Center for Investigative Reporting; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the Million Mom March; Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation; the Death Penalty Mobilization Fund; the Drug Policy Alliance; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Project On Death in America; and the Death with Dignity National Center; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the National Immigration Law Center; National Security Archive Fund; the Pacifica Foundation; Physicians for Human Rights; Planned Parenthood; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Urban Institute; American Friends Service Committee; American Immigration Law Foundation; Catholics for a Free Choice; Human Rights First; the Independent Media Institute; and MADRE.

Most of the ACLU income comes from YOU, the taxpayer.

ping

Democracy Angst (What's the alternative to promoting freedom in the Middle East?)

PM shuns US 'slavish love of guns'

McCain Still Trying To Gag Gun Owners From Criticizing His Anti-gun Record

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

From your keyboard to a SCOTUS decision, if we're lucky.

"The politicians should not tell the people to shut up." -- John Stossel

Tony Sanchez spent $60 million --- that’s SIXTY MILLION dollars (!) of his own money in his race for governor of Texas. He lost. And don't forget Oliver North and Michael Huffington.
HERE you'll find: "Mobility 20/20 spent $1.5 million, or roughly $37 per vote, and lost. Ax the Tax spent about $20,000, or roughly 37 cents per vote [AND WON -- in a totally come-from-behind victory]."
WHAT does all THAT say about "money controlling elections?"

The "Who funded it?" (or the "Who paid you?") Fallacy

"I don't think it's bribery; I think it's extortion. Bribery, you know, is when the person that's giving the money does it voluntarily. What it is in Washington is extortion because they all ask for the money." -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on FNC's The O'Reilly Factor, Feb. 22, 2001

"It's a shakedown system" -- Christopher Hitchens to Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, Jan. 16, 2002

"John McCain told me that the industries which contribute the most to political campaigns are the ones which are the most heavily regulated by the federal government." -- John Fund on Hardball March 26, 2001

"Corruption lies in the heart of the receiver, and not in the wallet of the giver." -- Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) on the floor of the Senate, March 29, 2001

"Contrary to popular belief, people who deliberately go out to buy political influence are vastly outnumbered by people who are sold political influence by creative or desperate politicians." -- Rick Gaber

"[John McCain] has raised every conceivable concern about constituents' improper influence over their government, while expressing little or no concern about the government's improper power over its constituents." -- Jack Wakeland

Hilarious, even...
Thomas Sowell says "The idea that money is corrupting innocent politicians would be laughable if it did not lead to such dangerous legislation..." HERE.
Walter Williams' comments on campaign finance shenanigans where congressmen play "the bad cop-good cop sham" are HERE,
Thomas Sowell asks, "Do we really want to allow bureaucrats and politicians to be able to harass citizens for expressing political opinions?" HERE,
and Congressman Ron Paul answers the question, "Why Is There So Much Money in Politics?" HERE.
Jason Thomas demonstrates exactly who is making sure political contributions remain an essential feature of business HERE.

Reformed politicians

Every time I hear a politician say, "We need campaign-finance reform," I think of some mentally disturbed criminal begging the police to "please stop me before I strike again."

Before we embark down the road that ultimately could lead to publicly financed campaigns consider this:

The average snack producer spends more money promoting a new product than all the money spent on political commercials in the average election cycle. And I have a problem with my tax dollars being spent electing Ted Kennedy again.

What we need is a reformed politician not a reformed system.

I suppose that after this next round of new laws fails to stop the habitual offenders (and it will), we will be forced to enact such drastic measures as handcuffing each elected official to a Boy Scout and the respective politician's mother. We could call it the "You just wait till your father gets home" Act of 2004.

Rob Goderis
Orlando
letter-to-the-editor, Orlando Sentinel, Feb. 6, 2002

What do you think the politicians say in those first phone calls? Things like, "How would you like a government-protected monopoly for your business?" AND / OR, "You wouldn't like it if your competition got such a monopoly, would you?" AND ESPECIALLY: Listen, I'm sure you're a player, and you know I won't let any regulators or revenue agents send any swarm of inspectors to descend on you or your company for no reason... ..."

"Remember Al Gore's telephone calls from the White House, telling various businesses how much money he expected them to contribute? They weren't beating down the White House gates, trying to get inside to force money into the pockets of those inside. Businesses were being summoned to pony up. No one said that refusal could lead to OSHA inspectors, IRS agents or others from the vast Washington bureaucracy descending on these entrepreneurs' factories or offices, or new taxes or red tape being imposed on them by Congress. No one had to."
-- Dr. Thomas Sowell HERE

Why "Reformers" suffer from rectal cranial-displacement
THE BLOG SQUELCHERS
THIS outrage in Washington State is WHY

"Shall. Make. No. Friggin'. Law."

Speech Crime in Wisconsin | Will journalists ever understand how campaign finance reform abridges free speech?, | "Pauline Kanchanalak: Poster Girl for the Futility of the McCain- Feingold Bill", | "McCain's Bane" and "There's always another CFR loophole."

"And now the court has let the most powerful of American interest groups -- incumbent politicians -- have their way with the First Amendment. Wednesday's message to the mere people was clear: Shut up, the court explained." -- Paul Greenberg

"[If the Supreme Court lets McCain- Feingold stand (which it did)] the only voices we'll hear are those the government has approved." -- is posted HERE.

See: A Constitutional Obscenity HERE.

See: "Last week's [court] decision is just a start in restoring political liberty" HERE. Find your lazy, ignorant, unprincipled legislators in a well-deserved state of shock HERE -- "in a story that is simultaneously hilarious and appalling."

If you believe in CFR, you have to believe THIS kind of corruption is OK.

The outrageous way "Campaign Finance" laws are really enforced is shown HERE.

See how every attempt to manipulate the election rules in an of itself is dirty politics -- as it always aids some participants and hurts others HERE. And here's an example from the state of Arizona.

Why McCain-Feingold couldn't even solve the problems it's wrongly identified as the source of corruption is pointed out HERE.

“After watching the senator for years, Smith believes McCain doesn’t truly understand his own signature issue. 'He is woefully ill informed on campaign-finance issues,' Smith says. 'I have seen him repeatedly misstate what the law is, misstate what court decisions held, and I think that’s one reason he gets so angry when he talks about it. It’s because he doesn’t really understand what a complex issue it is, what a difficult issue it is, he doesn’t understand the court hearings, he doesn’t understand how we’ve gotten where we are -- so he just gets mad.' ”-Byron York

See: "Too many voters are already bought -- not by corporate campaign donors, but by the government itself." HERE. (and don't forget the government gets to use guns and jails, which corporations, unions and other interest groups do not. Duh.).

"For all their talk about the virtues of democracy, many incumbent politicians really don't like it when voters have a voice--not if that voice is effective."-- Paul Jacob and David M. Brown

And see: "Campaign spending has never been a guarantee of electoral success—ask Michael Huffington or Oliver North. Incumbency is a better predictor of electoral success than campaign bucks—and it's when incumbents are spending a lot that they are obviously most in trouble. Nor is there any solid evidence that campaign contributions wag the dog of legislators' decisions more than do party affiliation, ideology, and their perception of their constituents' desires. It's far easier to support people who agree with you than to bribe people to do your bidding."

-- all excerpted from THIS PAGE

With Kennedy and Roberts on the side of the angels here, there's a good chance this might be the beginning of the end for CFR.

God, I hope so.

BTTT