The Line-Up
(Viewed through one-way glass mirror)
(Viewed through one-way glass mirror)
Thank God for Ruth Ginsberg
who has enough courage to lean to the left.
***
By ,
There’s a certain irony in the Supreme Court remaining open while much of the federal government is shut, for the high court created much of the dysfunction that cripples Washington today.
The court has failed to undo the partisan redistricting that has left the House hopelessly polarized. It has furthered Americans’ cynicism toward politics with nakedly political rulings such as Bush v. Gore. And, above all, it has created a campaign-finance system that is directly responsible for the rise of uncompromising leaders on both sides of the Capitol.
Political money was again before the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning, and, judging from their questions, the conservative justices are poised to make things even worse. Now they are prepared to expand on their 2010 decision that caused an explosion of independent spending by allowing the wealthy to give about $3.5 million apiece to candidates and parties in each election cycle. Their rationale: They’ve already allowed the system to become so flooded with money that more won’t hurt.
“It’s not that we’re stopping people from spending big money on politics,” Justice Antonin Scalia argued. “When you add all that up, I don’t think $3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money.”
Actually, Nino, $3.5 million is a lot of money. As Solicitor General Donald Verrillitried to point out, that means a party can get everything it needs to run all congressional races around the country from just 450 people. “Less than 500 people can fund the whole shooting match,” Verrilli said, adding: “There is a very real risk both that the government will be run of, by and for those 500 people and that the public will perceive that the government is being run of, by and for those 500 people.”
Scalia wasn’t impressed. He said it is “fanciful to think that the sense of gratitude” lawmakers feel toward their big donors “is any greater than the sense of gratitude that that senator or congressman will feel to a PAC, which is spending an enormous amount of money in his district or in his state for his election.”
It was as if Scalia, having left the stable door open, noticed that a horse had bolted — and decided the best solution would be to set the rest of the animals free.
Verrilli suggested, politely, that the court may have been wrong in dismissing “the risks of corruption from independent expenditures,” too.
“It is what it is,” Scalia said blithely.
Yes, it is. The 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo made government for sale and created the arms race in campaign financing by equating unlimited spending with free speech. The John Roberts court in 2010 made the system dramatically worse in its Citizens Uniteddecision, loosening restrictions and spurring wealthy donors to make hundreds of millions of dollars in independent expenditures. Now the court proposes to sell what remains of the government to about 500 people — the Koch brothers and their ilk, who have already filled the halls of Congress with tea party representatives, and liberal billionaires who will no doubt seek to make similar purchases.
Scalia may not be aware of this, because he does not read The Post or the New York Times, which he says are “so shrilly, shrilly liberal” and “often nasty.” In an interview with New York magazine published this week, he said he reads the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times and listens to conservative talk-radio hosts such as Bill Bennett.
If Scalia got out of his ideological echo chamber, he would discover that, encouraged by the court, wealthy conservatives donate to groups such as the Club for Growth and Heritage Action, which threaten to fund primary challenges to Republican lawmakers who show any ideological impurity. Because most Republicans are in safe seats (in part because of Supreme Court-sanctioned gerrymandering), the only threat to their reelection is in a primary — and so they have no choice but to obey the conservative billionaires’ wishes. The problem on the left isn’t as acute, but it’s only a matter of time before liberal billionaires execute a similar purge.
And yet Bobby Burchfield, a lawyer arguing against the spending limits on Tuesday, told the justices the rich suffer “a severe restriction on political speech.”
The poor dears.
Justice Elena Kagan said those who give $3.5 million should expect “special treatment” from Congress — and Burchfield didn’t disagree. Under the Citizens United decision, he said, “gratitude and influence are not considered to be quid-pro-quo corruption.”
He’s right. A few billionaires have purchased a Congress full of unbending extremists, and the Supreme Court made it all legal.
Read more from Dana Milbank’s archive
***
Republican presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, the living American who has served longest as a White House senior staff adviser, observed: “The Republican philosophy might be summarized thus: To hell with principle; what matters is power, and that we have it, and that they do not.” “Where the Right Went Wrong"
***
Republican Rule And Economic Catastrophe: A Lockstep Relationship"
***
"Politics and Economics: The 101 Courses You Wish You Had"
***
***
The Reign of Morons Is Here," Charles P. Pierce, The Atlantic
***
"A Southerner Explains Tea Party Radicalism: The Civil War Is Not Over"
***
"The Great Recession Vaporized 40% Of Americas's Net Worth. The Tea Party Intends Worse."
***
"The Shutdown Is A Republican Civil War" by Ezra Klein
***
Republican Rule And Economic Catastrophe: A Lockstep Relationship"
***
"Politics and Economics: The 101 Courses You Wish You Had"
***
"Sarah Palin As The Mad Hatter" (Image)
"Republicans for Revolution," A Study In Anarchic Apocalypticism
"Sarah Palin As The Mad Hatter" (Image)
***
"Jon Stewart Nails GOP Demands For Re-Opening Government"
No comments:
Post a Comment