The rabid kangaroos on the US Extreme court have done it again, showing shocking preference for the rich over ordinary Americans.
In a burst of judicial activism, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upended the gubernatorial race in Arizona, cutting off matching funds to candidates participating in the state’s public campaign finance system. Suddenly, three candidates, including Gov. Jan Brewer, can no longer receive public funds they had counted on to run against a free-spending wealthy opponent.
The court’s reckless order muscling into the race was terse and did not say whether there were any dissents, though it is hard to imagine there were not. An opinion explaining its reasoning will have to wait until the next term, assuming it takes the case, but by that time the state’s general election will be over and its model campaign finance system substantially demolished.
It seems likely that the Roberts court will use this case to continue its destruction of the laws and systems set up in recent decades to reduce the influence of big money in politics. By the time it is finished, millionaires and corporations will have regained an enormous voice in American politics, at the expense of candidates who have to raise money the old-fashioned way and, ultimately, at the expense of voters.
Arizona’s clean elections program was established by the state’s voters in 1998 after a series of scandals provided clear illustrations of money’s corrupting influence. In particular, the program was prompted by the AzScam scandal of 1991, in which many state legislators were recorded accepting contributions and bribes in exchange for approval of gambling legislation.
The system gives qualifying candidates a lump-sum grant for their primary or general election races in exchange for which the candidates agree not to raise large private contributions. If an opposing candidate is not participating in the system and spends more than the lump-sum grant, the participating candidate qualifies for additional matching funds.
It was those matching funds that produced a challenge from well-financed candidates, backed by the Goldwater Institute [plutocons delinked] and other conservative interests. The candidates argued that the matching funds “chilled” their freedom of speech because they were afraid to spend more than the limit that triggered the funds. A lower court agreed with that pretzel logic, but last month a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed. It said the speech of the plaintiffs had not been chilled. “The essence of this claim is not that they have been silenced,” the panel said, “but that the speech of their opponents has been enabled.”
In 2008, the Supreme Court eliminated the Millionaires’ Amendment, which let Congressional candidates raise more money when running against candidates who pay for their own campaigns. In January, in the Citizens United case, the court eliminated limits to campaign spending by corporations. Both cases cited the First Amendment rights of the wealthy, and in that depressing sequence, state finance programs would be the court’s next conquest… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
Here’s the ethical dilemma. The Roberts Court has broken a number of precedents with this order that is clearly unjust. At the same time, it’s hard to oppose anything that hurts the political aspirations of Jan “papers please Jose” Brewer and her bigoted policies.
What is the right thing to do when an injustice harms an enemy. Do we speak out, or do we remain silent? After some deep thinking, I say we speak out. Injustice is injustice, regardless of whom it harms. Remaining silent in the face of injustice anywhere, invites it everywhere. Therefore we must support fairness for society’s most despised members. How else will people know we aren’t right wingers?
Corporations are NOT people! Money is NOT speech!
8 Responses to “The Ethics of Injustice”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I don’t really get this ruling – first with Citizens they guarantee more corporate money, but then this ruling takes away public financing? WTF? Is it opposite day?
Lisa, how it works is that allowing corporate financing and outlawing public financing both benefit the rich. Remember, only the poor are stuck with free enterprise. The rich get all the benefits of socialism.
This is what I posted about too. That whole “money equals speech” reasoning is retarded enough anyway. Now they’re trying to say a candidate’s free speech is being “chilled” if his opponent gets matching political funds?!? There isn’t a shred of logic anywhere in that “reasoning.”
Only the logic of plutocracy, Tom
Obviously, the Courts are really not interested in clean elections where money to influence the vote is controlled by government (of the people) instead of private interests and political parties. Candidates in “clean” elections then have somewhat equal access to the voter no matter the contents of their private purses.
We already see that access to justice in our courts in both civil and criminal law matters is dependent upon having enough money to litigate and the middle class and poor of this country are priced out of the justice system. Really not surprising that so often it is the law itself that undermines the democratic principles in free Republics because those with the biggest purses can and do influence the laws under which we live and they do buy the vote in elections because of their ability to educate the public through the media.
This, of course, is nothing new and when the law recognized corporate entities as “natural persons” with constitutional rights, the people were sold down the river to ensure the safety our political system that supports the survival of our capitalistic, democratic Republic.
Welcome Carol. 🙂
Well said, although I think our democratic republic has already given way to a plutocratic corporatocracy.
Just to be clear, it’s not a “ruling” – it’s an “Order in Pending Case”
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/AZ-order-by-SCt-6-810.pdf
That said, it’s highly likely that the Court will take the case – and reverse the Ninth Circuit’s extant ruling:
Source:
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/016171.html
Good point, Nameless. We need to keep the GOP out of the White House until we can change that imbalance in the Extreme Court.