A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law gives yet another boost to plutocracy in America. The ruling makes it more difficult for congressional candidates of modest personal means to match money contributed by the wealthy to their own campaigns. This gutting of the "millionaire's amendment" will tilt elections even more heavily toward the wealthiest candidates.
The "millionaire's amendment" to McCain-Feingold says that the amount a candidate can raise from each individual contributor can be increased if an opposing candidate contributes more than $350,000 to his or her own campaign. Since there are no limits on self-funding, this amendment was passed in order to give less wealthy candidates a more realistic chance to match the war chest of a millionaire opponent.
The Roberts Court has instead ruled that while no limits can be set on self-funding, they can and indeed must be be imposed on those who have to solicit funding from others.
The ruling is yet another example that elections have consequences. George W. Bush's Supreme Court appointees, Sam Alito and John Roberts, have swung the court toward the conservative perspective of granting carte blanche to the richest corporations and persons and constricting the ways and means by which effective challenges can be mounted against them.
The Supreme Court decision in 2000 declaring Bush the winner in Florida and thus the nation has made an enormous difference in American life. As this latest Supreme Court ruling shows, a consistent bias in favor of plutocracy is but one of the results.
1 comment:
As far as I can see, this has been one of the most distressing Supreme Court sessions in memory. Thankfully, the important exception being that habeus corpus was upheld in the Guantanamo case, which goes to show how distressing our circumstances have become when I can be relieved at that kind of ruling!
But the rulings on gun control and the Exxon Valdez awards will leave a huge clean-up mess behind comparable to that which still gums up Prince William Sound. An Oregon fisherman who was part of the class action suit was quoted in the paper to the following effect, why should we go along with any controversial new development proposals (he had a LNG terminal proposal in mind), when it's clear there is no consequence for developers who operate negligently? Not a bad conclusion to draw.
On the issue of campaign reform, the fallacy that we need a Supreme Court ruling saying is that Money is NOT Speech. Whereas speech is protected, we should absolutely be able to regulate money - period. I can speak freely, but in a democracy, my freedom of speech must depend on how what I say resonates and is transmitted by my fellow citizens. My ability to purchase a super-megaphone (amplified speech!) is not the type of protected speech the Founders envisioned.
It is frightening to see these decisions roll down with no real recourse or remedy. How does the little d-democrat respond when the last court of appeal has rendered an abhorrent decision?
Post a Comment