Posted on 01/25/2010 6:31:16 AM PST by reaganaut1
James Bopp Jr. likes to begin speeches by reading the First Amendment. He calls opponents, including President Obama, socialists. He runs a national law practice out of a small office in Terre Haute, Ind., because he prefers the citys conservative culture.
And for most of the last 35 years, he has been a lonely Quixote tilting at the very idea of regulating political donations as an affront to free speech.
Not anymore. Mr. Bopp won his biggest victory last week when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, unions and nonprofit groups have the right to spend as much as they want supporting or opposing the election of a candidate.
Mr. Bopp was not present in the courtroom. His client not for the first time replaced him with a less ideological and more experienced Washington lawyer when the case reached the justices.
But it was Mr. Bopp who had first advised the winning plaintiff, the conservative group Citizens United, about using its campaign-season film Hillary: The Movie as a deliberate test of the limits on corporate political spending. And he shepherded the case through appeals to the Supreme Court as part of a long-term legal strategy that he says he has just begun.
We had a 10-year plan to take all this down, he said in an interview. And if we do it right, I think we can pretty well dismantle the entire regulatory regime that is called campaign finance law.
We have been awfully successful, he added, and we are not done yet.
The Citizens United case was really Jims brainchild, said Richard L. Hasen, an expert on election law at Loyola Law School [...].
He has manufactured these cases to present certain questions to the Supreme Court in a certain order and achieve a certain result"
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Interesting. Is this guy a FReeper?
Only regulation I would really go for...
“Get all the Money you want... just post SOMEWHERE, for ALL TO SEE, WHO it Came from, and How MUCH.
and where it comes from may aid my decision to vote for you or NOT.
Is it you? lol
Did you see the prop8 thing? People who donated to the pro-marriage side were being threatened and harrassed by the pervs. There is another case in Wash State before the SCOTUS to decide whether the names of donors should be released or not.
Props are Direct DEMOCRACY (MOB RULE) and I DISLIKE them.
Those who finance such props are not Exactly running for office, so if names are withheld or published. it goes for BOTH Sides.
IF they come for me... I will protect myself and my family.
**threatened and harrassed by the pervs.**
Scumsuckers like them can do so because of the Self defense laws in this country SUCK ROCKS. Having said that... baseball bats are LEGAL and CHEAP.
/s
That is one way. Another is to require that all political donations be anonymous. You can't sell influence if you don't know who is buying.
That would allow backing candidates whose policies would benefit your business, lifestyle, personal preferences, etc. but would prevent them from giving you special treatment based on your donations.
Potential for abuse? Sure, some would communicate their level of donation to the candidate, and if caught both should be adjudged felons. But posted for all to see is only as helpful as the truthfulness of the poster; George Soros' name is not on any of the hard left organizations he uses, and more phony ones would be created to mask the true source of the funds.
**Another is to require that all political donations be anonymous. You can’t sell influence if you don’t know who is buying.**
Sounds nice, but there would have to be a LEVEL of GOVERNMENT Interference. Name is on the CHECK, so to insure ANONYMITY, the POL could never see the check, or any of their staff,or the Party LOCAL . If I write a check for a POL... I don’t want to send it to anyone OTHER Than the Pol.
No system is perfect, but I was thinking of the remnants of the IRS (after the FairTax or a flat tax is instituted; good luck with that, but I’m a dreamer!) receiving and distributing the donations. It would be a felony to disclose sources to anyone. Amounts and dates given should be posted, so you could track your own donation, but the source should be anonymous.
Why monetary? Because free speech requires that anyone, collectively (our right to assembly) or individually, be able to not only say their choice but "shout" it if they want. One way that we "shout" louder is to give more money.
Persons have to be allowed to "shout" as loud as they can/want or they are not free. Yes it may be obnoxious and bullying and if we don't like it, self organize and "shout" back.
Freedom is raucous and mobile and vacillating.....and the source of all our power.
The greatest change this ruling will bring will be to openly create sub-national parties and move us towards a plurality system. If voters get disgusted by the manipulation of the voting process by the ACORN's and unions and corporations and Libertarians, Tea Partiers, etc. When political mistakes, like ACORN electing Obama, occur, a truly free people will self-organize and new leadership will emerge.
However, truly free speech has only two requirements: that it be available for all to hear freely and that the source be made known. If any American "speaks" by donating to a union or corporation or PAC we should all be able to know who, individually and how much they gave inside that collective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.