WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a law meant to level the financial playing field when rich candidates pay for their own political campaigns.
The 5-to-4 decision, legal experts said, was significant for rejecting the rationale behind the law, known as the “millionaire’s amendment,” and for confirming the court’s continuing skepticism about the constitutionality of campaign finance regulations.
“Supporters of reasonable campaign finance regulation are now zero for three in the Roberts court,” said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “This is a signal of what is to come. What could easily fall following this case are the longstanding limits on corporate and union spending in federal elections.”
“Reasonable”, of course is by far the most mailable word in the English Language. As such, I put the whole of Hasen’s statements down in the noise level. There should be no surprise that liberal Millionaire Jack Davis was the one who brought the case, incidental to two failed runs for a western New York House seat.(A loss, I think he richly deserved) What Davis fails to understand ( that failure is in itself understandable) is that even with the added money, he still would have lost, being far too liberal even for New York State.
What this is, too, is a facit of the first amendment that few liberals ever really understand: The first amendment guarantees a right to free speech, but does not provide a guarantee you’ll be heard.
Tags: campaign finance regulation, campaign finance regulations, constitutionality, federal elections, first amendment, Free Speech, Jack Davis, law school, legal experts, liberals, millionaire, new york, new york state, New York Times, noise level, political campaigns, rationale, Richard L. Hasen, skepticism, western New York
June 27th, 2008 at 7:33
Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you.
Tom Humes