Freedom of speech for the rich guys
Digby:
Broadly speaking, what we need is transparency and accountability when it comes to funding political campaigns. There's always a difficulty in crafting rules that will work, as someone will always find a loophole and exploit it. (Or in some cases, simply ignore the rules altogether.) And yes, both sides tend to create "charities" and other entities that are thinly disguised political operations. It's how the game is played, and you can't expect one side to unilaterally disarm.
While the First Amendment is often the basis for striking down attempts to bring sanity to political funding, I'm not sure that having two year long presidential campaigns in somehow enshrined in the Constitution. Would it really abridge our freedom to have a more sensible campaign period, like six months? Do we really need to have the 527's and the faux charities and all the rest?
In the end, there probably is no solution. Public financing appeals to many progressives, but I just don't see it happening. The obvious problem is that many citizens would be simply outraged to have their tax dollars flow directly to political campaigns, no matter the possible benefit. It might work in other democracies, but we live in a country where people can get downright angry about the salaries of state legislators, for crying out loud.
The one thing that really does need to be cracked down on is the use of tax-deductible contributions in politics. The law is widely ignored and there is often little transparency. Technically those uses are illegal, but in practice the law doesn't really exist any more.
So the Supremes took a strong stand for the First Amendment today and stood up for the right of little guy corporations, aggrieved rich guys and voiceless conservative special interests to influence elections with misleading advertising. The first amendment is sacred and shouldn't be tampered with for any reason. God bless America.As we all know, money is speech in this country.
Well, not exactly. The words "bong hits for Jesus" aren't covered because they could be construed as promoting something that some people think is bad. (At least if you are under eighteen years old.) I'm awfully impressed with the intellectual consistency of the Roberts Court so far, how about you?
Broadly speaking, what we need is transparency and accountability when it comes to funding political campaigns. There's always a difficulty in crafting rules that will work, as someone will always find a loophole and exploit it. (Or in some cases, simply ignore the rules altogether.) And yes, both sides tend to create "charities" and other entities that are thinly disguised political operations. It's how the game is played, and you can't expect one side to unilaterally disarm.
While the First Amendment is often the basis for striking down attempts to bring sanity to political funding, I'm not sure that having two year long presidential campaigns in somehow enshrined in the Constitution. Would it really abridge our freedom to have a more sensible campaign period, like six months? Do we really need to have the 527's and the faux charities and all the rest?
In the end, there probably is no solution. Public financing appeals to many progressives, but I just don't see it happening. The obvious problem is that many citizens would be simply outraged to have their tax dollars flow directly to political campaigns, no matter the possible benefit. It might work in other democracies, but we live in a country where people can get downright angry about the salaries of state legislators, for crying out loud.
The one thing that really does need to be cracked down on is the use of tax-deductible contributions in politics. The law is widely ignored and there is often little transparency. Technically those uses are illegal, but in practice the law doesn't really exist any more.
