There's too much money in politics. Your tax money, specifically.

A hilarious op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, with my commentary.

A liberal nightmare at the Supreme Court?

Three key high court cases that could dramatically shift U.S. constitutional law to the right are likely to hinge on the vote of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. 

By Eric J. Segall 

The Supreme Court will hear three cases during the 2013-14 term that might dramatically alter the landscape of constitutional law. Campaign finance reform, abortion and the separation of church and state are all on the agenda. When the dust settles, if the conservative justices hold sway, Americans could find themselves living in a different country. As has been the case in recent years, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's votes will likely be decisive in each case.

The irony is that the "different country" Segall refers to is the country Americans would have if they determined these matters by popular vote, rather than by what Justice Kennedy's mood is on a particular day.  

First on the docket is campaign finance. In Buckley vs. Valeo, the court in 1976 held that the dangers of corruption justify significant government regulation of direct campaign donations by groups and individuals.

When you give money to a candidate you like, it's "corruption".  When a politician gets elected and uses taxpayer money to buy off corporations and voting blocks, it's "liberal government".

But it did not allow the government as much leeway to regulate independent expenditures by those groups and individuals to advance the interests of a candidate or campaign. After Congress tried to place some limitations on the political expenditures of corporations and unions, the court, in 2008 in Citizens United vs. FEC, granted corporations and unions the same rights as private individuals to make independent political expenditures.

The Court found, to the astonishment of progressives, that corporations and unions were comprised of private citizens. After all, didn't the Constitution say specifically that none of the First Amendment protections apply to citizens acting in groups? Yea it did. Right next to the right to abortion.

The Citizens United decision, however, did not address the important distinction made in Buckley between groups or individuals giving money directly to a candidate or campaign versus the independent expenditures.

I feel so much better knowing that GS-15 Lois Lerners are parsing my contributions to make sure I'm not corrupting the political process.

All of that may change. In McCutcheon vs. FEC, to be argued Tuesday, the court will hear a case brought by a Republican donor from Alabama and the Republican National Committee challenging limitations on aggregate contribution limits to political parties and candidates. Although this case does not directly challenge the distinction made in Buckley between contributions and expenditures, conservative amicus briefs are urging the court to abolish that distinction and invoke the 1st Amendment to prohibit the regulation of campaign contributions 

Given Kennedy's long-standing antipathy toward campaign finance reform (he wrote the Citizens United opinion), as well as the other conservative justices' belief that money equals speech, this case could be the knockout punch that limits legislative efforts to reduce the corrosive effects of money on political campaigns.

Let's talk about corrosive effects of money on political campaigns.

First, there's the "corrosive" effect of individuals acting alone and in groups who contribute to help the candidate they support get his message to the voters. We need, of course, laws against citizen participation in politics, if we are to protect our democracy from corruption.

Second, there's the corrosive effect of trillions of dollars expropriated from taxpayers at gunpoint and trillions of dollars borrowed from China (to make up the gap when the working stones annually run short of blood) to purchase and suborn and bribe massive blocks of government-pre-ordered voters  (buy now, while supplies last!) to keep the North Pole district in Washington churning out the free checks in the mail, payoffs to compliant corporations, pork, free food, free cellphones, etc.

Your $40 contribution to your favorite pol skirts "corruption". The government's $40,000 annual contribution to their favorite voter, multiplied by scores of millions of voters,  or $500,000,000 contribution to their favorite corporation, to secure the re-election of... the government? Well, that's hope and change.

Not surprisingly, a host of public interest groups and law professors are lining up on the other side. Justice Elena Kagan is on record as being vehemently opposed to using the 1st Amendment as a blunt tool to stifle campaign finance reform.

Justice Kagan, who is "vehemently opposed to using the First Amendment as a blunt tool to stifle campaign finance reform", was a loyal employee of the Clinton and Obama administrations, where 90% of administration employees were employed to direct tax-payer monies expropriated at gun-point for delivery to appropriate and grateful corporations and voting blocks. Do you think the scrupulous future Justice spoke up about that at Cabinet meetings?


We have too much money in politics. Too much of your tax money, that is.