December 10, 2003

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the campaign finance reforms passed by Congress are, for the most part, legitimate. These reforms limit monetary contributions to candidates and parties, as well as advertising during political campaigns. The Court says such activity may be motivated by corruption, and we need to avoid even the appearance of corruption. So, in their efforts to avoid even the appearance of corruption, the Court has, just in the last year, made sodomy a constitutional right and outlawed First Amendment free speech on the basis that it might be causing problems.

Notice carefully the process, being acted out before our eyes, by which human rights are lost. Dishonest politicians blame money for their dishonesty. Then, instead of lifting honesty to a place of higher honor and more regular practice, they tell us if we can get the money out, candidates will be more honest and nicer to each other. The fact that we will empower the media, the courts, and incumbents in the process, and dis-empower the grassroots citizen, grassroots groups, businesses, political challengers, and political parties, as well as the clear language of the First Amendment, doesn't seem to factor into the decision. This reasoning is then affirmed by the nation's highest legal minds. After all, we can't have people and groups having freedom over where they donate their money because that might cause corruption in politics!

Kudos to Justices Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy for dissenting from the five justices in the majority. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the dissent, which is worth reading. Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, was the swing vote with the majority (which also included David Souter, a Bush 41 appointee). The conventional wisdom in Washington is that this is a dangerously conservative court.