June 26, 2008SCOTUS says it’s OK to buy your way into officeThe gun case is getting all of the chatter, but perhaps the more profound Supreme Court decision today came in Davis v. FEC. In another 5-4 split, the court overturned the “Millionaire’s Amendment” to campaign finance law. Basically, that provision said that a candidate facing a wealthy opponent who pumps tons of personal cash into his campaign may raise more money per donor than usual. It sought to level the playing field against self-financed candidates. Five justices manufactured a constitutional right to buy an election. Read the decision (only 39 pages). |
SearchQuick Thought
Recent comments
Monthly archivesCategories
Latest columnsToday's editorials
Letters to the editorAbout this blogThe Roanoke Times editorial staff engages readers in a respectful dialogue and exchange of opinion, including our virtual editorial board where you can discuss tomorrow's editorials today. Read more about the editorial staff .....Advertisement.....
|
June 26, 2008
SCOTUS says it’s OK to buy your way into office
The gun case is getting all of the chatter, but perhaps the more profound Supreme Court decision today came in Davis v. FEC. In another 5-4 split, the court overturned the “Millionaire’s Amendment” to campaign finance law. Basically, that provision said that a candidate facing a wealthy opponent who pumps tons of personal cash into his campaign may raise more money per donor than usual. It sought to level the playing field against self-financed candidates.
Five justices manufactured a constitutional right to buy an election.
Read the decision (only 39 pages).
Comments
[June 26, 2008 2:26 PM]
HenryBarry Obama has $265 million in his coffers. What say you about that, RT?
[June 26, 2008 2:37 PM]
c. trejbalI'd say it's disgusting how much money has tainted politics. I'd say good for him for mobilizing so many donors. I'd say you're wrong and that is the total he raised, not how much he has in his coffers.
Most important, I'd say that has nothing to do with this. He isn't self-financing his campaign, which is what the court decision has to do with.
How about you try to get over your Obama hatred for a second and discuss an issue?
[June 26, 2008 2:58 PM]
HenryI don't hate him. I just think you love him too much to criticize him. That's not a good thing for a journalist. You guys have picked sides and want us to pick the same side.
Funny, you didn't mention special interest money influencing the candidate.
"Mobilizing donors". That's a hoot.
[June 26, 2008 3:06 PM]
Dan RadmacherYou have a short memory, Henry. We just criticized Obama earlier this week.
[June 26, 2008 3:16 PM]
HenryYou should have read that article.
"But then, in this instance, Obama has shown himself to be no better than any other politician, either."
Not exactly a stinging rebuke.
[June 26, 2008 3:27 PM]
JohnWe shall see how many more negative Obama editorials appear as the campaign wears on.
I understand that the RT is up for sell. Does anyone out there now how to get in touch with Rupert Murdoch? We can only hope!
[June 26, 2008 3:31 PM]
Josh"In accepting that advantage, Obama is no worse than any politician."
This is a trend I've often pointed out about RT editorials. When they bash a conservative, they bash a conservative; but when they bash a liberal, there's always the qualification: "but the other side does it, too."
Never fails.
[June 26, 2008 3:43 PM]
luanne tWhere in the editorial last week criticizing Sen. Webb on his odd choice to lower electric rates did we bash a conservative as well?
Where in the preview re: Rep. Boucher listed just below this entry is there criticism of a Republican?
Again, what does that have to do with this ruling or this thread?
Neither party is clean on campaign financing.
[June 26, 2008 3:49 PM]
Dan Radmacher"In doing that, he broke his word and tarnished his claim to being a different kind of politician somehow above Washington's corrosive power grabs."
Stinging? I don't know. But it's not exactly pulling punches.
[June 26, 2008 3:56 PM]
WillI've posted this many times before but I think it's worth repeating.
Until the parties stop this foolish pandering to voters just to stay in office, we will never have any real progress in terms of advancing the city, county, state or country forward.
The parties, both Democrat and Republican spend way too much time spinning and parsing the words of the other rather than coming up with REAL and MEANINGFUL solutions to the problems in front of us.
Just once, I'd love to see a politician identify a SPECIFIC problem, and then come up with a logical solution to solve it. Let the voters decide on whether its the right solution rather than playing the religon card or the race card or the gender card.
[June 26, 2008 10:50 PM]
JoshWill,
That's what conservatives do all the time. They identify a specific problem and come up with a logical solution. They never play the race card or gender card.
Take Social Security. There's an issue NO politician has had the guts to challenge in 70 years, and Bush took it on. The result? He was demagogued for "wanting to wreck SS, and hurt old people." In actuality, he wanted a mere 2% for people to be able to manage themselves, much the way Chile has done with great results.
The 104th Congress took on a number of sacred issues. When they put up a welfare bill, Clinton and the Democrats said Newt "wanted to starve old people" and wanted to "make them choose between food and medicine". Nonsense like that. Clinton finally signed it the third time when he sensed the political winds starting to change.
When we oppose things on moral grounds such as porn and condoms in the schools, you say we "play the religion card."
Race? We don't bring up race. DEMOCRATS bring up race. Bill Clinton did it with Obama. Obama brought it up this week, claiming Republicans would play the race card. That was nifty sleight of hand, wasn't it? Blame us for something preemptively that we hadn't done at all.
So the problem, Will, is when we do what you say you want, you pummel us for it. You find any number of excuses to slam it. In short, you don't want to be pleased.
[June 26, 2008 11:20 PM]
JoshLuanne
I should qualify my assertion: When a Democrat does something that everybody would agree is wrong, such as Obama pledging, promising, and swearing to the media that he was a new type of politician who wanted to clean up campaign finance and thereby pledged to accept matching funds, then did a complete 360, the Times uses the "everybody does it" excuse.
The cases of Boucher and Webb you cited? You were scolding them, yes. But you were chiding them because they lined up with the conservative position on issues.
[June 27, 2008 7:59 AM]
BUD5 JUDGES manufactured a constitutional right--- wow now THERE's a first!
[June 27, 2008 8:34 AM]
Blue John"That's what conservatives do all the time. They identify a specific problem and come up with a logical solution."
I wonder what the logical solution will be to solve the problem of getting reelected.