Tuesday, September 27, 2005
'Equating money with speech': Here's hoping the Supreme Court throws out 99.9 percent of all financial prohibitions within political campaign laws. ... The word 'prohibitions' is apt. It conjures up, well, Prohibition and all of its unintended debacles. ... Hub Blog's preferred 'campaign finance reform': Every single penny donated to a campaign has to be reported. And, yes, legislators, that includes alleged 'ticket sales' at clambakes. No other limits or rules. I call it the Fat Cat Disclosure Act. Through transparency, we'll know who's bought. ...
Can someone figure out the following NYT sentence (nothing againt the article -- it's more about the courts and the lunacy of current finance laws/rulings and how it's impossible to follow them):
"The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes Vermont, endorsed the state's approach in a 2-to-1 ruling last year that concluded that Buckley v. Valeo was not a complete prohibition on spending limits and that such limits could be justified by rationales the Supreme Court had not considered at the time, including public cynicism about the impact of money on politics."
So the courts are now trying to regulate "public cynicism"?
Can someone figure out the following NYT sentence (nothing againt the article -- it's more about the courts and the lunacy of current finance laws/rulings and how it's impossible to follow them):
"The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes Vermont, endorsed the state's approach in a 2-to-1 ruling last year that concluded that Buckley v. Valeo was not a complete prohibition on spending limits and that such limits could be justified by rationales the Supreme Court had not considered at the time, including public cynicism about the impact of money on politics."
So the courts are now trying to regulate "public cynicism"?
