Supreme Court ruling (apparently unanimous) gives election boost to candidates having big private money…

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/us/politics/09scotus.html

This amazes me, particularly if it is unanimous.  Intuitively, I think people who want to run for public office should not first have to be wealthy or have wealthy backers.  Debate if you wish the presence or absence of a class system in the US-based primarily on economics, good ideas, responsible representation of constituent interests and public support are not confined to people with money or access to it.  A unanimous decision to hear it when the timing of hearing it will almost certainly affect the current year’s election is stunning to me.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Supreme Court ruling (apparently unanimous) gives election boost to candidates having big private money…

  1. Just a note to clarify one part of your comment: Corporations have been considered “persons” in the law since the late 19th Century for some purposes. The limits of their “personhood” have never been clearly defined but the status of “person” is a part of our law that the court was respecting under stare decisus in the decision you are discussing.

    Like

  2. In a very cynical – but deadly serious – tone, I think we have had a class system based on wealth for decades, maybe since the country was founded. “Good ideas, responsible representation of constituent interests and public support” are noble ideas but money talks – and corrupts. It’s apparent from the last few major decisions that SCOTUS has become the right arm of the party of NO. Am I saying there are corrupt justices on the bench?

    In Jan., the esteemed court ruled that “corporations are people,” allowing unlimited corporate money in US elections. The stench of big money behind this ruling requires a gas mask but no magnifying glass to decipher the “reasoning” behind this one.

    Earlier this month, SCOTUS bit a big chunk out of Miranda. One comment left by a reader: ” Roberts and Scalia both promised during their confirmation hearings to respect stare decisis.” Another said, ” After you are told you have the right to remain silent, you must stop being silent in order to remain silent.” A little flim-flam here?

    And now we have this decision, which brings me back to my original question. “Am I saying there are corrupt justices on the bench?” Either that or they are joining the right-wing in trying to rewrite the Constitution or both.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s