Keeping Politics Safe for the Rich.. NYT editorial

[Stuart G]

Keeping Politics Safe for the Rich
Published: June 8, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09wed1.html?hp


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
.
The court’s reckless order muscling into the race was terse and did not say whether there were any dissents, though it is hard to imagine there were not. An opinion explaining its reasoning will have to wait until the next term, assuming it takes the case, but by that time the state’s general election will be over and its model campaign finance system substantially demolished.

It seems likely that the Roberts court will use this case to continue its destruction of the laws and systems set up in recent decades to reduce the influence of big money in politics. By the time it is finished, millionaires and corporations will have regained an enormous voice in American politics, at the expense of candidates who have to raise money the old-fashioned way and, ultimately, at the expense of voters.

Arizona’s clean elections program was established by the state’s voters in 1998 after a series of scandals provided clear illustrations of money’s corrupting influence. In particular, the program was prompted by the AzScam scandal of 1991, in which many state legislators were recorded accepting contributions and bribes in exchange for approval of gambling legislation.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I didn't know there was a public financing system in Arizonia. This shows how important changing the Supreme Court really is. No matter what the situation in 2012, we must alter that court. Sure we got issues with Democratic leadership. But we got more issues with the Supreme Court.

[DrDan]

1. we will face the impact of junior's choices for generations . .. .

[wolfgangmo]

3. Well there are 2 ways to effect change in personel on the SCOTUS

One is if they retire and the other is if they die.


I'm not sure we can count on retirement. So yes, we will likely have to live with the disasterous decisions of the lawfirm of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, et. al. for a generation or two.

[Uncle Joe]

2. That's not protecting the First Amendment, that's protecting oligarchs with mega phones

pure and simple.

The Robert's Court is a one sided disgrace.

Thanks for the thread, Stuart.