Supreme Court issues decree (not ruling) banning State's Rights in Gov Elections

Author Topic: Supreme Court issues decree (not ruling) banning State's Rights in Gov Elections  (Read 9113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
By Brad Friedman on 6/10/2010 1:58PM  
Activist U.S. Supreme Court Demolishes AZ's 'Clean Elections' Law, States Rights
No Tea Bagger protests against the courts latest Big Government encroachment?...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7888#more-7888

If you still have any doubts about what this Supreme Court is up to, even after their disastrous Citizens United ruling, yesterday's "emergency order" should now make things crystal clear...

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.

"Regained," New York Times? Did we miss something? Had the "millionaires and corporations" previously lost their "enormous voice in American Politics"??

Maddow covered some of the details in quickie coverage last night, observing: "It's great news for anyone psyched to get all the riff-raff out of politics so we can get over this whole democracy fantasy and just settle down to being ruled by our economic overlords, like the founding fathers intended."...






The court's unsigned, one-paragraph, emergency order is here [PDF]. Muriel Kane at RAW STORY has more: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0609/ny-times-supreme-court-keeping-politics-safe-rich/

Whenever we speak with folks in Arizona, the one thing they seem to be unanimously proud of, in regard to their dubious electoral system, is their Clean Elections law which has allowed a lot of candidates who might not otherwise have the funds or insider connnections to not only get into the game, but actually get elected.

That may now be all over, thanks to this wildly activist U.S. Supreme Court who continues to show that they are not conservative in the least, at least in regard to their propensity for Big Government over-reaching into state rights issues.

Where are the Tea Bagger protests now? Where is Glenn Beck and his phony outrage? Yeah, that's what we thought --- nowhere.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
NY Times: Supreme Court ‘keeping politics safe for the rich’
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0609/ny-times-supreme-court-keeping-politics-safe-rich/
By Muriel Kane
Wednesday, June 9th, 2010 -- 2:19 pm


Wall Street Journal: "The order was short, swift, and largely flew under the radar"

Last winter's Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, which lifted restrictions on corporate spending in elections, had been widely anticipated and aroused immediate outrage. It appears, however, that Citizens United was far from the last move in what the Wall Street Journal describes as the Court's sweeping "overhaul of the nation's campaign-financing laws."

In a brief, one-page decision issued on Tuesday, the Supreme Court cut off additional matching funds for three Arizona candidates who are participating in that state's public campaign finance system for the upcoming August 24 primary, thereby significantly benefiting a fourth candidate who has not accepted public financing.

"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 New York Times explained in an editorial titled "Keeping Politics Safe for the Rich."

"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," the Times continued. "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."
Story continues below...

Under Arizona's Clean Elections program, which was enacted in 1998 following a gambling-related bribery scandal, if one candidate in a state election decides to forego public funding in order to seek large private donations, the other candidates become entitled to additional matching funds. Several conservative candidates had challenged this system on the grounds that it "chilled" their freedom of speech by giving them a motivation to limit their own private spending.

The challengers were represented by a lawyer from the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest firm, funded by right-wing foundations, which seeks to eliminate all government regulation of business.

Although a District Court initially ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled that decision in May, saying that the matching funds impose no more than a "minimal burden" on free speech rights and that this is justified in light of Arizona's "long history" of political corruption.

The plaintiffs sought an emergency stay of the decision from the Supreme Court, and that has now been granted. The plaintiffs intend further to seek a full review of the case by the Court, which would almost certainly have the effect of preventing the use of matching funds in next fall's general election, since a ruling would probably not come until after November. Any such ruling could derail similar public campaign financing systems in other states, as well.

Because what the Times described as "the court's reckless order muscling into the race" simply granted a stay on a lower court decision, there was no indication as to the grounds for the order or whether there were any dissents. "An opinion explaining its reasoning will have to wait until the next term," the Times noted, "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."

According to the Washington Post, "Brewer and other gubernatorial candidates who agreed to public financing will see their expected money drop from a little more than $2.1 million to $707,447 under the state formula. Businessman Buz Mills, a privately funded candidate in the Republican primary, already has spent nearly $2.3 million."

"We think this will throw the Arizona election cycle into chaos," David Donnelly of the group Public Campaign told the Post. "The court is preventing them from running the campaign they signed up to run."
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Jon W

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
So, what Arizona should do...is to go ahead and issue the matching funds. In doing so, they'd be telling the fed to f'off. Isn't that what they did with the immigration law. If they do this. it will force the feds hand and bring this to a head faster or the fed can shrink back under the rock it came from.

Offline ES

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,640
  • Old Iron Sides: Enemy of Tyrannical Scum
If you opt out of public financing then its obvious you have more money than the others on the public finance side. So how the hell does giving those on the public side more money chill free speech?  >:(
"My heroes are people who monkey wrench the new world order". - Jello Biafra

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
WTF? It's too overt.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
The Supreme Court is not supposed to rule the land.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
The Supreme Court is not supposed to rule the land.

The Constitution is, eh?
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
The Constitution is, eh?

No, that's used as Toilet paper now by those in charge.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline s3d1t0r

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • F̱̹̳̖o̤llow the mon̐ͫ͂̓̊̓͊ë́͐͒̍ȳ̏ͨ̾͆
    • Seditious Blasphemy doth appear here!
We were promised change after all.

Although what kind of change was never specified prior to 0bama's appointment as Supreme Chancellor, err, or I mean "elected President"
“go to work, send your kids to school
follow fashion, act normal
walk on the pavement, watch T.V.
save for your old age, obey the law
Repeat after me: I am free

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors

End public funding for candidates' races for any and all public offices.  Also, ban funding contributions from corporations and cap individual contributions at $1,000 per election cycle... including the candidate's personal contributions to their own campaign.  Every incoming dollar must be accounted for and balanced against a transparent accounts payable report.

Why should the taxpayer be forced to fund staffing, advertising, and other campaign expenses for those looking to get a job on the public dole?  The fairest system would force the campaign process to be based on character, experience, and public appeal instead of on huge concentrated contributions and taxpayer funding.

/idealism

However, SCOTUS should not weigh in on the States' election processes unless it is to maintain that the process is in line with a republican form of government, as this is the requirement of all the member states to this union.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!