"What seems like really big money is less than a yacht," Gingrich said in an interview. Wealthy donors could decide that "this year, instead of buying a new yacht, I'm going to spend $70 million on a candidate," he said.McEwen sums it up this way: there's a difference between free speech and class warfare.
This is a good lead-in to another event at the Supreme Court this week, one that didn't make it into the news. This event wasn't a hearing, but a ruling. Five justices, including Roberts, ruled there is a limit to the equation of money = free speech in campaigns. That limit is that judges who are elected to the job may not personally ask for campaign contributions. That is appropriate because a judge depends on the respect of the public. In addition, while a politician is expected to respond to supporters, a judge is barred from doing so.
There is the little detail that while a judge may not ask for donations directly, his campaign committee can. Doesn't that affect respect? Well, yeah, but one reform step at a time.
As expected, Scalia wrote a strong dissent. He accuses these five justices of putting their desire to protect the integrity of courts above the requirements of the Constitution itself. Yes, the integrity of the courts is important, he wrote, but don't lower the Constitution's standards to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment