The Supreme Court And Campaign Finance

Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, is more concerned about the reasoning behind the majority's opinions on campaign finance law.  She regards the Citizens United ruling, in which corporate contributions to PAC's were justified by arguing that corporations have the rights to free speech under the Constitution,  and that campaign contributions are an expression of free speech, as a bulldozer against campaign finance law.  The latest ruling by the Roberts Court is less crushing than Citizens United, but she is concerned about the next steps that might follow from the reasoning behind the majority opinions:

"The problem started with Citizens United, when Justice Anthony Kennedy looked at independent campaign spending and couldn’t imagine how it might corrupt candidates.
“In fact, there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate,” he scoffed. “Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption.” The test for whether such spending corrupts, Kennedy said, is much stricter: whether it constitutes a quid pro quo of largesse for political favors."

Justice Kennedy's understanding of corruption is naive to say the least.  In order for campaign contributions to qualify as corruption they would have to a pass severe test.  That is, there would have to be a clear link between the contribution and a favor in return for the contribution.  Bribery, of course, is illegal, therefore it is restricted by existing criminal law.  The implication is that there is no need for campaign finance laws that regulate political campaigns.  Marcus argues that the Robert's court may pursue Justice Kennedy's reasoning about expenditures and bulldoze away what remains of campaign finance law.

Texas May Be Leading America In The Direction of A Third World Society

This article is ostensibly about the Governor of Texas and his objection to federal oversight on how Texas operates its prisons.  The Governor's resistance to federal oversight is symptomatic of what is happening in our society.  That is the greater issue.  Texas views itself as an sovereign state that is not subject to oversight by the federal government.  Federal oversight of Texas's prison system, especially when it might have a liberal stench, violates the rights of the governor to do what he wants to do in Texas.  The federal government has different value system than the sovereign state of Texas and the governor does not feel that he is obliged to enforce federal laws.  If prisoners, and security guards, in Texas's prisons want to sexually abuse prisoners, he does not want to enforce federal laws that would stand in the way of their freedom to do what they want to do with prisoners.  Nobody in Texas gives a damn about the rights of prisoners. 

Texas is the largest, and the most powerful red state in America.  The governor feels that his political opportunities are enhanced by his opposition to federal oversight.  His sentiments are reflected in other red states which place a high value on the US military, but do not have much in common with the values that are more common in the North East or on the Pacific Coast.  The dominant values in Texas, and most of the red states, are more like those in third world countries. The political elite can do whatever they please, and they reject most of the values that have enabled America to be a beacon to the rest of the world.  Texas is not that far from Mexico.

Does Government Spending on Anti-Poverty Programs Reduce Poverty?

This graph makes several points:  Government anti-poverty programs do reduce poverty. Moreover, the US spends a much smaller percent of its national income on poverty reduction than other nations even though they do reduce poverty in the US. That may be because anti-poverty programs in the US are not broadly supported by the public and by politicians.  The big question is why public support for anti-poverty programs in the US is so weak. Many Americans responded positively to Ronald Reagan's story about welfare queens driving Cadillacs, and many oppose Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act for a similar reason. They don't want their tax dollars going to the "wrong people".  They have no problem, however, spending almost as much on prisons as they do on higher education.  This may be an example of "American Exceptionalism" at work

How To Become A GOP Presidential Candidate

Sheldon Adelson is one of the richest people in the world.  He made his money running gambling casinos in the US and in Asia.  He does not favor all kinds of gambling, however, he has been lobbying against Internet gambling because it siphons gambling dollars away from his casinos.  He is a gambler who does not like to lose bets.  He spent a lot of money financing Newt Gingrich's unsuccessful primary campaign, so he switched his support to Mitt Romney only to lose again.  This time he wants it to be different.  GOP presidential candidates are auditioning at Adelson's candidate selection event.  In addition to licking his feet, they are required to compete with each other on the support that each would provide for the conservative party's agenda in Israel.  Adelson does not want to lose another election bet.  He will work hard to select the candidate with the best chance of winning.  He does not have to worry about who will do his bidding on Israel.  They have all joined his team.  My guess is that they are also all opposed to Internet gambling.  They will argue that it supports family values by protecting children from gambling.

The combination of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers gives the GOP a lock on billionaire support in the US.  The Supreme Court has decided that they can spend as much as they want to purchase a candidate.  That will make their job a lot easier.  After all, if money can't be used to buy a president, what is it good for?

The US Supreme Court Equates Free Speech With Money

The Supreme Court decided that individuals can spend as much as they want to fund political campaigns.  Chief Justice Roberts defended the decision by arguing that limits on campaign contributions violated the right to free speech which is protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution.  I am totally surprised that our founders had not thought about the right to purchase the favors of political candidates when they wrote the first amendment.  Everyone knows that "money talks" and that billionaires should be allowed to have as much free speech as they can afford. After all, what is the purpose of money if it can't be used to purchase whatever one wants. 

The Supreme Court used to be one America's most highly respected institutions.  This decision by the Bush majority will tarnish its declining image beyond repair.  The court has become a defender of plutocracy.  It was intended to be the defender of democracy which is the enemy of plutocracy. Perhaps we should call this the Adelson/ Koch Court.

Scot Brown Will Run For A Senate Seat In New Hampshire

Scot Brown was trounced by Elizabeth Warren in the battle for a Senate seat in Massachusetts.  He has figured out the voters in New Hampshire may less demanding than the voters in Massachusetts.  He may be more successful selling his good looks and his "personal charm" in New Hampshire. Being a Senator is a nice job.  Brown has been looking for a job since he lost the lost the last election.  All he has to do is to raise enough money to pay for an expensive campaign.  This may be the easiest way for him to find a job.  He accomplished nothing when he filled Ted Kennedy's seat after his death.  Maybe that's what voters in New Hampshire want in a senator.  Less government is better than more government.

Tom Friedman Has Found A New Way To Sell Globalization

We do have a global economy and we will continue to have one if the sovereign states can figure out how to manage it.  Tom Friedman has been selling a version of globalization for a decade by promoting its virtues, and not concerning himself with many of the problems.  He, and the college professor on whom he relies for many of his ideas, has come up with another selling point for globalization.

Friedman opens this op-ed with some pointless paragraphs to engage our interest.  He then quotes Michael Mandelbaum who uses the current issues in Ukraine to promote the virtues of globalization.  Mandelbaum begins by inventing a new concept that he calls Putinism.  He then explains how globalization provides the means to end Putinism.  He argues that Putin is a product of globalization because, as everyone knows, Russia's economy is dependent upon exporting oil and gas to the rest of world (primarily Europe).  Therefore, we can end Putinism as long as Western Europe is willing to stop importing oil and gas from Russia.  The US would have do a few things as well but the threat of Putinism presents a test for the West.  Mandelbaum tells us that we can put an end to Putinism if we have the moral courage to do so.

Putting an end to Putinism is a moral story.  It is a story that Friedman used to defend our invasion of Iraq.  It was necessary to let our enemies know that America had the moral fortitude to do what was necessary to eliminate the threat of terrorism in the Mideast.  We did what Friedman proposed, but it has not put an end to terrorism.  We have been fighting that battle, without making much progress, for a long time.  However, we may have convinced the rest of the world that we have the moral courage to make sacrifices that are required to defeat evil empires.