"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

On 11/14/11 12:29 am, Robert Green wrote:

His other favorite saying was to "follow the money." I don't think
enough
journalists or even investigators live by that rule. I don't believe
there
are many journalists left that can do it in the modern age because
finances
are so complex. I'd still like to know who profited most from the
real
estate bubble because you can bet they're cooking up another bubble to
cash
in on.

That's why we have to ban political contributions altogether, whether by
corporations or by unions, and have publicly funded elections.

Perce

But multiple Supreme Courts with multiple outlooks have ALL put the
kibosh on such things, due to that pesky first amendment thingy. This is
a string of ruling dating from the immediate post-Nixon era forward. In
fact a lot of the really weird things, such as PACs, were put in place
by what the Supremes let stand and/or shot down.

The Supremes often shoot down laws not because what they're trying to
control is intrinsically unconstitutional - just that they're poorly
drafted. That's pretty easy to understand with our Congress. If I were a
cynic, I would say that Congress *deliberately" writes laws that they know
will fail to pass SC muster so they can appear to have done something and
only failed because of that "Warren/Roberts/U-name-some other CJ villain"
Court.

I think the error the Founding Fathers made was assuming that Congress would
never abdicate its power and would always fight for it the way the
individual reps did at the Constitutional Convention. Now, they don't want
to do anything for fear of ****ing off some lunatic fringe group and getting
voted out as a result of a nationwide nutcake campaign against them financed
by people who don't even live there. We're in serious leadership trouble,
which is obvious looking at the contributions both parties have made to our
current "broke" state of affairs. The political termites from BOTH sides
have found the holes, finally, in our foundation and we had better get them
out before repair isn't possible, as is often the case with termites.

Although you've pointed out the multiple courts have issued multiple
decisions that appear to support "money = free speech" they may also be
sending a message, as they often do, "You'd better fix this mess, and fast,
Congress." When it's clear a foreign power has funneled money to influence
an *important* election, the Congress might get serious about writing a law
that passes Constitutional muster barring, say, Israel, China, Chile or
Japan from pumping enormous amounts of money into elections across the US.
A lot of countries pay handsomely as it is to have us act as their personal
protection force. We can get more! (-:

As many here know, the Court vacillates. It reacts, although slowly, to
events and changes in society. Once slavery was A-OK with them. Handgun
control is just but another example. Hotly debated for years as to the
meaning of "right to bear arms" we've seen a swing in the recent, most
conservative court. Will a future, more liberal court once again decide on
other side? Oddly enough, the question of handguns and "corporate speech"
have a very similar pivot point: Do the rights to "bear arms" or to have
free speech apply to groups or individuals?

There's a good test for that possibility. It's the 5-4 split. More and
more cases are going that way and these "one vote win" cases could easily
revert with a new court balance. Or due to an unintended consequence so
extreme that people demand action. Or if the Chief Justice decides he likes
a particular issue raised in a particular case. And probably even if a SC
law clerk puts a brief in the wrong folder.

"Money = Free Speech" seems offensive to enough people that I think
eventually something will have to be done. Sadly, in the mode of government
we've adopted (crisis reaction) it will take a crisis like a "bought"
election by a foreign power to effect the required change. But don't worry:
those interested in buying an election know the "US For Sale" sign is out
there in bright neon. Their challenge is for someone to be able to follow
the money when that happens. It might take more than one or two
foreign-bought politicians before anyone notices.

--
Bobby G.