http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0627/Supreme-Court-Matching-funds-in-Arizona-election-law-violate-free-speech/(page)/2

I agree with the decision although I think they got the 'reason' wrong.

The SCOTUS thinks that by subsidizing one candidate, the government usurps the free speech of the opponent.

I disagree.  Government campaign subsidies first and foremost infringe upon the freedom of speech of the TAXPAYER, whose money is being doled out to candidates whose positions (roughly 50% of the time) they do not support.

Government money has no business in elections.  Both the Dems and Repubs have shown massive fundraising capability.  They don;t need to shake down John Q. Taxpayer for even more.

I think there should be a cap on how much a candidate can spend. By getting public financing, it avoids mega donations from corporations (thanks to Citizens United) and people with boocoo $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Public financing would level the paying field so that ANYONE can run and it would cut down on corruption because big business wouldn't be in the picture. But, let's hear it for the status quo. Politicians can continued to be paid off. YAY!!!!



Cat

The Robber's Court is a fascist front.  They not only want Big Money Donors to be able to flood their candidate's coffers with unlimited funds, they now deny the poorer candidates equal opportunity in the marketplace of ideas.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_porc.gif

My POV on taxpayer money spend on campaigns is diametrically opposed to LB's.  Whereas LB sees public financing as extortion from the taxpayer, I see it as the voter controlling the elections process, rather than the party with the most money.  I prefer "voter-owned campaigns" to the term "publicly financed" for that reason. 

The voice of commerce is a legitimate voice until it can overwhelm all other voices via buying media attention.  Once commerce reigns supreme in political discourse it becomes self-aggrandized, dangerous, and insane.  I would like to see Greenpeace get matching funds and TV time with the chamber of commerce and let the better ideas win, not the bigger bucks.

The Robber's Court is a fascist front.  They not only want Big Money Donors to be able to flood their candidate's coffers with unlimited funds, they now deny the poorer candidates equal opportunity in the marketplace of ideas.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_porc.gif

My POV on taxpayer money spend on campaigns is diametrically opposed to LB's.  Whereas LB sees public financing as extortion from the taxpayer, I see it as the voter controlling the elections process, rather than the party with the most money.   I prefer "voter-owned campaigns" to the term "publicly financed" for that reason. 

The voice of commerce is a legitimate voice until it can overwhelm all other voices via buying media attention.  Once commerce reigns supreme in political discourse it becomes self-aggrandized, dangerous, and insane.  I would like to see Greenpeace get matching funds and TV time with the chamber of commerce and let the better ideas win, not the bigger bucks.




I totally agree.

There is a move to get Clarence Thomas to resign in disgrace (or just resign) which would turn the court a bit to the center.  I hope it succeeds

Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts are all in bed with Right wing big money political operators, such as the Heritage Foundation and Koch Industries.
http://btx3.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/justice-for-sale-clarence-thomas-antonin-scalia-and-bribes/

It was OK for the media to pursue Former President Clinton year after year for lying about a private, consensual sexual affair, but we have five justices who committed one of the biggest crimes in American History, and it ceased to be a big story.
-- Vincent Bugliosi
(in re: Bush v. Gore)

There shouldn't be funding at all, or campaigning.  What should happen is in return for a broadcasting license, air time should be given to all candidates to voice their positions, for press conferences, and for debates.  All getting equal time. That is it. End of story.

The more concentrated the donations get, fewer and fewer people will find their interests served.

Upper middle-class conservatives find the Koch Brothers and their own political interests to be similar now.  They might not in ten years and by then our republic will be finished.
::)