In 1976 in Buckley v Valejo the Supreme Court asserted that unlimited amounts of money contributed to campaigns (Ie., to persons wanting to become members of the government and acquire the ability to vote on laws directly applicable to the campaign contributor) had an inherent corrupting influence, throwing democracy and the idea of one man one vote out of balance, and therefore the government had a compelling interest in monitoring and controlling the amounts of money a single person, be it a real person or a fake person, could contribute. That assumption remained in effect for 34 years, with the primary legislative question being, what are the extent of reasonable controls those same competitively elected legislators should enact in order to retain a fair playing field, and in order to allow a fair balance of power when seeking to acquire political influence by way of money contribution. We can all thank God, the Roberts Court, in a return to Gilded Age, robber baron, right-thinking, corrected that the fallacy that the people were laboring under by way of the United Citizens v FEC and McCutcheon v FEC decisions. The Court determined that there is no corrupting influence exerted through money; in allowing money without limitation to be contributed to individual people who are seeking to hold office and pass laws that deal with and directly effect the financial interests of the contributing parties,. Hence, the government, (in effect the people making those financial interest decisions dealing with and effecting the interests of the contributors), has no compelling interest in regulating those same financial contributions to the decision makers. We should all thank God that our wrong thinking has been corrected and that now fake people, with vast financial resources that are not limited in acquisition by ridiculous impediments real people labor under - like death, have an unlimited ability to contribute money to our decision makers without ridiculous impediments, such as a presumption that giving people vast sums of money may buy influence and get them to vote for what you want. After all, according to the Roberts Court, the supreme law of the land, there is no historical evidence that money has a corrupting influence on politics.
Posted on: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 17:54:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015