Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Something tells me that the framers would be astounded to see how today's extremist SCOTUS majority have turned the order "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" on its head - in ruling after ruling (5 to date on this subject) they have ruled that money=speech and therefore rich candidates have a lot more "speech" at risk of being "abridged" and therefore their speech must be protected even if that "protection" abridges the free speech (if money=speech) of EVERYONE ELSE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/politics/28campaign.html?_r=1
WASHINGTON — In its first campaign-finance decision since its 5-to-4 ruling in the Citizens United case last year, the Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona law that provided escalating matching funds to candidates who accept public financing.
The vote was again 5 to 4, with the same five justices in the majority as in the Citizens United decision. The majority said the law violated the First Amendment rights of candidates who raise private money. Such candidates, the majority said, may be reluctant to spend money to speak if they know that it will give rise to counterspeech paid for by the government.
"Counterspeech"?? For those that need a glossary to keep up (I know I do), this "counterspeech" of which the majority speaks, is any MONEY spent to help make normal citizen candidates financially competitive with deep-pocket candidates.
“Laws like Arizona’s matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
===================
From the SCOTUS Glossary of Terms for The New Corpocracy:
ro·bust
[roh-buhst, roh-buhst]
–adjective
1. The boatload of money spent to buy an election
=====================
News article cont'd:
Three years ago, in Davis v. Federal Election Commission, another 5-to-4 decision with the same justices in the majority, the court struck down a superficially similar federal law known as the “millionaire’s amendment.” That law allowed candidates to raise amounts over the usual contribution limits when rich opponents spent more than a given amount of their own money.
Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said the law imposed “an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises” free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
There it is again. In the shrill newspeak of the majority, allowing a less wealthy candidate to compete equally with Candidate Money Bags = "An unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises free speech rights." (Remember "Robustly exercises" = "spends gobs of money"). Nevermind how the rest of us are deprived of free speech (if money=speech) by allowing rich candidates to buy elections.
Chief Justice Roberts said the logic of the Davis decision required the court to strike down the Arizona law. Indeed, he said, it is one thing for the government to allow candidates to seek additional contributions and another for the government to send a check.
LOL. And now in overturning the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, they cite their OWN flawed ruling in a previous case. DOH!
“So they are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received (but chose to spurn) the same financial assistance,” Justice Kagan wrote. “Some people might call that chutzpah.”
A novel argument indeed. Meaning that it has ZERO basis in constitutional law or precedents. Yeah, some might call that chutzpah. Some might say it is the actions of a court majority motivated not by their sworn commitment to uphold the constitution, but solely by an ideological party-line desire to place the "rights" of wealthy candidates (which generally is synonymous with GOP candidates) above the rights of ordinary citizens.
- -
| 
