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…
…
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.
If the court pushes on with its chainsaw, cutting down programs that trigger matching funds, it would threaten systems in Connecticut and Maine, and judicial-race financing systems in Wisconsin, North Carolina and elsewhere. It might even shake New York City’s system, which provides higher matching funds when a well-financed opponent does not participate in the system. Candidates with no prospect of matching funds would be reluctant to join a system that limits their spending. Unless the court veers from its determined path, there will be no limit to the power of a big bankbook on politics.
I remember back when Alito and Roberts were nominated, I expected the Dems to fight. They were both clearly radical right wingers (spare me about Roberts, it was obvious he was a judicial nutjob). But hey, whatever… Even most of my commenters thought I was being unreasonable to expect Democrats to fight, to force the Republicans, if necessary, to use the nuclear option. It was unreasonable to expect a mutli-million dollar public campaign to the make the two of them noxious to the public (doing so with Alito would have been especially easy.
And if the nuclear option had been used would having done so hurt Dems in any way? No. But it would have given Dems one less argument to use against actually doing the right thing in this Congress. Not, of course, that that would have stopped them from doing all the wrong things, since that’s what the majority of Senators want to do.
The NYTimes is full of it in one respect, though, the influence of money on politics in the US is already decisive. This is just an attempt to hammer home that advantage, to make it permanent.
Doing so will make the US into a banana republic, of course, assuming one doesn’t consider it already nothing more than a powerful third world nation living on legacy investments from prior generations.
anonymous
from → Class Warfare, Electoral Politics, Stimulus
I understand classifying this post under “Class Warfare” and “Electoral Politics” (sort of — “Unconstitutional Rulings?”), but “Stimulus”?
Since Bush v. Gore, the court and its socioeconomic class have been running unchecked. At this point, I don’t think they think there is anyone who can or anything that can or will stop them. A decade on, they have been right about “anyone.” The catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is a demonstration of one of many “anythings.” Things don’t care what these “justices” and their ilk think.
And let’s not let Kennedy off the hook when he votes with the “judicial nutjobs.”
TaosJohn
Doing so will make the US into a banana republic, of course, assuming one doesn’t consider it already nothing more than a powerful third world nation living on legacy investments from prior generations.
Yes, we’re already a big third world nation. The corruption is complete, there is no antidote, no fix. Everything is broken and slowly running down. It’s a goddamn shame, but that’s why this post doesn’t faze me: whether candidates can get matching funds in elections that are essentially meaningless in the first place–something proved by the Obama administration with stunning, breathtaking clarity–doesn’t seem to matter much.
Fester
I have to agree with TaosJohn. It seems that the same policies are always pursued, no matter who we elect. The bait and switch, where a candidate campaigns against some policy during the campaign, then implements the same policy after being elected, has happened too often. We may be reaching the point where elections are too irrelevant to be stolen.
No one objected when Tiberius abolished the elections for the Roman magistrates, because everyone know at that point that the magistrates weren’t the people making the decisions.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
Even most of my commenters thought I was being unreasonable to expect Democrats to fight, to force the Republicans, if necessary, to use the nuclear option.
Right. Because did you think Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson were going to vote against their corporate benefactors?
Celsius 233
We’ve been shot through the heart; we’re still moving because we haven’t quite bled out yet.
anonymous
Agreed. This is just the wooden stake in the heart, just in case a movement for democracy somehow tries to start up. Which I don’ t think will happen until there is a precipitous decline in standards of living. And I think civil war against liberals is actually a more likely outcome than democracy. But since I think reform would really need a constitutional convention rather than some fine tuning of election laws, this is just overkill and shows the level of paranoia that goes along with omnipotence.
jo6pac
Doing so will make the US into a banana republic, of course, assuming one doesn’t consider it already nothing more than a powerful third world nation living on legacy investments from prior generations
Will then it seems to be agreed upon, yep a stake to the heart is about right.
Hugh
I remember writing to Leahy blasting him for his milquetoast endorsement of Roberts. This was back at the time that Democrats were still running scams like choosing their battles and keeping their powder dry and cons to help them elect more and better Democrats. In retrospect, I think the Democrats were not being spineless, that was just a useful excuse, something to fool the rubes with. In confirming Roberts, and certainly in not fighting his nomination, they were doing exactly what they wanted to do. At heart, they really didn’t, and don’t, have a problem with Roberts’ radically conservative judicial philosophy. I mean look at Elena Kagan, a supporter of the Imperial Presidency, for example. This is what so many fought so hard to elect Democrats for?
Tom Hickey
At the time, I was calling it a de facto coup d’etat, and it’s turning out to be precisely that. This was engineered from the top as a consolidation of the corporate state. Welcome to fascism.
Tom Hickey
Hugh, you are right. Elena Kagan is Obama’s contribution to the consolidation of corporatism and the imperial president selected by the oligarchy. Her appointment cements the capture of the state, and it shows clearly where Obama and the Dem Establishment stand, if there was any doubt. This is a one party state and the two “factions” trade power to keep up appearances. After hours, they get together for drinks to laugh about it.
John
The only consolation is a somewhat bitter one that with the corporate and money domination of US government, the inevitable screw ups will follow as they have from Enron to BP. The catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is just the beginning. The ending will not be pretty. The oligarchs are not on the side of history. Their demise will be painful for all involved unless we are very lucky.
David H.
Do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?
That’s pretty much “them” with the gun pointing at us. God bless America.