U.S. Supreme Court to hear (oral) arguments Tues on campaign finance . . .

[TaleWgnDg]

U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments Tuesday (2/28/06) on campaign finance

By Christopher Graff, AP Writer | appearing in Boston Globe, Saturday, February 25, 2006

MONTPELIER, Vt. --A typically blunt statement by Howard Dean nine years ago about campaign contributions -- "money does buy access and we're kidding ourselves and Vermonters if we deny it" -- is at the heart of a case that comes before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 28, 2006).

. . . snip . . .

Dean's statement in 1997 came as the then-governor called upon the (Vermont state) Legislature to enact campaign finance reform: Lawmakers delivered by limiting campaign contributions and spending as well as by creating a system of public financing.

Opponents, claiming the (Vermont) law unfairly infringed on free speech rights, filed legal challenges. So far a federal judge and a federal appeals court have endorsed Vermont's effort but most legal analysts say Vermont's odds of prevailing in the (U.S.) Supreme Court are not good.

"The court has been fairly divided on the issue and with the additions of Justices Alito and Roberts, I think the job for Vermont has gotten much harder," said Cheryl Hanna, a Vermont Law School professor.

Even (Vermont's) Attorney General William Sorrell, who will argue Vermont's case on Tuesday, concedes he has a tough job. "I don't think there is any question we have a huge challenge ahead," he said Thursday (2/23/06) in an interview from Washington as he prepared for the oral arguments.

"What's at stake here, though, is the integrity of our elections and the right of the people to be heard in a democracy," said Sorrell. "Testimony before the (Vermont state) Legislature and in the lower court showed that average Vermonters see these vast amounts of money that candidates raise and they believe their voice isn't really heard and that public officials are beholden to large monied interests that fund their campaigns."

. . . snip . . .

A decision (by the U.S. Supreme Court) is expected in June (2006).

. . . more at http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/02/25/us_supreme_court_to_hear_arguments_tuesday_on_campaign_finance?mode=PF

The U.S. Supreme Court case is entitled: Vermont Republican State Committee v. (Vermont Attorney General) William H. Sorrell, (SCOTUS docket #04-1530). See also: backgrounder press release http://www.vpirg.org/pubs/2005.06.15_USCcase_release.php (Vermont Public Interest Research Group (vpirg), a non-profit advocacy organization)

.

[ShockediSay]

1. Who thinks the new 'justices' will allow lobbyist money to buy elections

and those they elect?

[TaleWgnDg]

3. Well, since Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote the

last time around a similar issue was brought before SCOTUS. I'd venture that the first amendment "free speech" argument will win, hands down. Free speech is express in the constitution therefore it has greater weight than does the construed and implied tainted-by-money voting rights u/ equality issue.

So my take is that the Vermont Republican Party (and others) side will win, hands down.

.

[Nite Owl]

2. It's going to be a hard and very

important case to win.

Corporations have used the argument that their free speech is being infringed upon if they are limited in the amount of money that they can give but the VT AG, Sorrell seems to be using the argument that the people's free speech is being limited by lack of access due to lack of money:

"What's at stake here, though, is the integrity of our elections and the right of the people to be heard in a democracy," said Sorrell. "Testimony before the Legislature and in the lower court showed that average Vermonters see these vast amounts of money that candidates raise and they believe their voice isn't really heard and that public officials are beholden to large monied interests that fund their campaigns."

Sounds like he has a very good argument but with the court the way it is this is an uphill battle.

[targetpractice]

4. Anyone else believe this is the real reason for Roberts and Scalito?

It's cases like these that are important for solidifying Republican power. I think abortion (while important) is somewhat of a red herring issue designed to obfuscate the judicial confirmation process.

Thoughts?

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Alito is the same reason that Roberts plus Thomas and

Alito is the same reason that Roberts plus Thomas and Scalia were nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. And, that Republican reason was (and is) to turn back the legal clock to pre-Franklin Delano Roosevelt timeframe.

To a time when corporations lacked regulation. Lacked federal scrutiny. Lacked state scrutiny. Lacked U.S. Supreme Court scrutiny. All because the predominant legal theory on the U.S. Supreme Court bench was that it lacked the legal authority to intervene, to regulate corporations, to regulate inter-state commerce, to uphold states laws, to uphold federal laws, to uphold whatever intruded upon corporations.

That is the central theme of Republicans then and of today. Aided today by the ignorant reactionary idiots who want to place their religion into our laws. For without this strange coalition, the Republicans would not be in power today.

BTW, the great majority of federal cases neither see the light of day before the U.S. Supreme Court nor are ever appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, the neo-cons led by George Walker Bush, Rove, Cheney et al, are also packing the lower level federal courts.

WAKE UP, AMERICA!!






.

[depakid]

6. Kiss the Vermont law- and any other similar law goodbye

Nixon's Supreme Court already set the stage for the destruction of meaningful democracy in this country back in 1976 with Buckley v. Valeo- which equated "free speech" with raw money. Historians will one day look back at that as one of the most insidious decisions ever rendered.

The only hope for any parity at all would be with media re-regulation that included such things as a strong and enfoceable fairness doctrine and equal time provisions.

Laws like this one will be doomed to failure in the coporatists courts.

[harpboy_ak]

7. Buckley v. Valeo was partly overturned in 2000

In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, Mr. Justice
Stevens, concurring, said

Justice Kennedy suggests that the misuse of soft money tolerated by this Court's misguided decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 518 U. S. 604 (1996), demonstrates the need for a fresh examination of the constitutional issues raised by Congress' enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Acts of 1971 and 1974 and this Court's resolution of those issues in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam) . In response to his call for a new beginning, therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property; it is not speech.

Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results.

excerpted from http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-963.html

More states need to do what Maine & Arizona did, and have public financing that lets candidates match what their opponents spend.

[Demeter]

8. Make It Worth the Supreme Court's Consideration

and maybe we can get some justice (otherwise known as bribing the court. I'd offer them amnesty from impeachment, myself. No cash necessary).