One hand giveth, the other taketh away. That’s how I’m feeling after days of euphoria following the victory of Scott Brown over Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts special election. A stunning upset that finally tells the world, or more importantly, the Obama administration, that the Tea Party movement is not imaginary. It’s not a bunch of rednecks, it’s not a bunch of angry republicans…it’s working-class Americans saying “enough is enough”.
What could be more demonstrative of that fact than a republican winning Ted Kennedy’s seat? I know, I know, it’s the people’s seat, as Scott Brown reminded us during his debate with the diminutive Martha Coakley. Better yet, he went on to prove it with a solid win that came with margins that made stealing the election impossible for the corrupt political machine of that state. Senator Scott Brown, in my humble opinion, may be one of the best things to happen to this country in a long time. It was more than refreshing to hear him in Washington, speaking in decisive, clear tones and articulating the simple rules of the game that most of us would like to see implemented in our Federal Government. Fiscal responsibility being first and foremost.
Just as I was beginning to wonder if the euphoric feeling would ever subside, the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it for me with their ruling last week regarding some of the basic tenets of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. The legislation, originally intended to squeeze corruption from the political donation process, enraged most republicans and further distanced McCain from his party when he introduced it. We all say we want politicians who “get things done” and who “reach across the aisle” and who “compromise in an effort to produce actual legislation”, but be careful if you are a politician who actually does any of those things.
Remember when McCain called for the troop surge in Iraq? This was not a popular notion at the time and his fellow republicans ran in the other direction, but McCain was right. He put what was best for the country ahead of his own political ambitions, an act that is as rare in Washington, D.C. as are Polar Bear sightings in Hawaii.
McCain-Feingold was no exception. Republicans cried “foul” and felt that free speech was being squashed. I find that argument ridiculous and invite anybody to find me one person in this country who is not free to speak his or her mind, on any subject, in any media, with fear of repercussion. I mean, really…look at what transpires in this country. We have everything and anything available to us 24/7, every conceivable type of information or opinion. The argument that Free Speech as guaranteed to us in the Constitution, was somehow taken away or diminished by not allowing corporations, groups or lobbyists to offer huge donations to political campaigns, seems ludicrous to me.
I don’t necessarily want Boeing, AIG, or Wal-Mart to have a bigger voice than the rest of us. But it wasn’t about that, anyway, and we all know it. It was about big donations being rewarded with big federal contracts and politicians being paid off for the favor. We all know that. We all know what McCain-Feingold was meant to do. We all know why republicans hated it. It was killing the cash cow, the goose that laid the golden eggs, and again, when it comes down to cash or character, most politicians will take the cash and compromise their character.
I laugh at the people I hear celebrating this ruling as some kind of victory. It’s like the chickens celebrating a new dental plan for the fox. Watch now, as the river of corrupt money again floods the political process. The very last thing we need right now, and it is odd, also, that the Supreme Court seemed to have missed the “Scott heard ’round the world” from Massachusetts. Let’s see who, during the mid-terms and the campaign of 2012, takes the big money, and how they pay back that favor if and when elected. Then, put a little star next to their name…and make sure they get booted out next time around, as is about to happen to most of Congress this Fall.
Interesting column…I’ve never understood this issue very well…nor do I now. Public vs. Private financing? Limits on contributions? Distinctions made= People vs. entities like unions..Corporations vs. people? Individuals? …Advocacy groups? …very confusing…
I think you’re right to keep an eye on the elected , their funding , and their votes.
However, I see the only solution which would remove much of the influence of money in the obsession to get re-elected, as well as reduce the influence of lobbtists…..TERM LIMITS.
If we can set them for our president’s …why not Congress as well???
Term Limits…that’s an excellent point. I don’t full understand it either, Jimbo, but I understand what the problem is that they were trying to cure. The undue influence that big donors have in elections, and then with the winning candidate. Also…You can tell a little bit by who “cheers” for a certain outcome. Thanks for reading, as always…
…”Political Action Committee’s didn’t even exist in 1776, so how the hell could the first amendment apply to that?”I’d add to that infra red sucvaillenre devices didn’t exist in 1791, but the Fourth Amendment still applies to them. See Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). The meaning of the Constitution may not change, but its application does. The core protection of the First Amendment, in my view, is the restraint on government from restricting political speech. Whatever else it may mean, that’s the core of it, and BCRA by definition impedes political speech. The First Amendment is not a codification of a natural law right to speak one’s mind — it is a prohibition on government from preventing speech, not a guarantee that your voice will be heard or that your voice will be equally loud as anyone else’s.”I’m not an originalist, so why should I even try and answer your questions?Because you made an originalist argument. You appealed to the original meaning of the First Amendment: if PACs didn’t exist in 1791, how on Earth could the framers have understood it to apply to something that didn’t yet exist? This is something I’ve never understood about non-originalists: if the original meaning is worthless, why do you fall back on it when it happens to suits you? Is the original meaning authoritative, or isn’t it? It’s exactly the same with foreign law – if it’s authoritative in Roper, why wasn’t it in Hudson?In at least one regard, though, I totally agree with you. The worst problem with Bush’s signing BCRA was that he signed a piece of legislation that he had said he believed to be unconstitutional. That is an impeachment-worthy offense for a President, in my view, although obviously one unlikely to lead to impeachment procedings. “Now how people can say they are conservative, but then think it’s perfectly ok for the government to pass a law that would make it illegal to pick your nose in the privacy of your own house is beyond me. But they do – they think that’s a pefectly constitutional law.”From my perspective, that question is meaningless. It procedes from the premise that my answer about what the Constitution DOES say should procede from my evaluation of what it SHOULD say; that if I believe that it’s unacceptable that government should be able to ban picking your nose, ergo, I must believe it’s unconstitutional, because anything that is stupid, or immoral, or political unacceptable, must also be unconstitutional. And I say “piffle.” That isn’t how I see the Constitution. I reject the premise of the question.The Constitution permits government to do many things that I don’t approve of, politically. You know, I don’t like that the Constitution permits states to have legal abortion, but it still does so. I don’t see what is so hard about grasping that one can look at the Constitution in a way that is not normative: I don’t look to the Constitution and think “what can I do with this,” I ask “what does it say.” If it says you can’t do something, the normative question of whether you should is irrelevant; if it says government can do something, then you have the political debate about whether it should ban picking your nose, or smoking, or whatever liberal fad is in this week.The difference between legal liberals and legal conservatives (not necessarily the same thing as political liberals and political conservatives) would appear to be that legal conservatives don’t want to resolve every single political dispute at the level of the Constitution. We see the Constitution as primarily structural. In the normal course of events, I want government to exercise as limited a portion of its power as is prudent, but that doesn’t mean that I think that restraint has to be written into the Constitution against future generations.
vyjXzO duqfpwurjjqw
IzCKkv , [url=http://wsmmrfieaeaa.com/]wsmmrfieaeaa[/url], [link=http://exyllcxhjczj.com/]exyllcxhjczj[/link], http://rmosimorsjut.com/
J0D6SS zntynquwoakz
hwWl4e , [url=http://vyyzsfpnivzc.com/]vyyzsfpnivzc[/url], [link=http://wbxrmjbtqafx.com/]wbxrmjbtqafx[/link], http://uffumighjxnn.com/
Great blog! I am loving it!! Will be back later to read some more. I am bookmarking your feeds also
I simply want to say I am newbie to blogging and site-building and absolutely loved your web-site. Almost certainly I’m likely to bookmark your blog post . You really come with awesome posts. Thanks a bunch for revealing your blog.