The Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission was not about aggregate limits on individual campaign donations to candidates in federal elections. The case was about what constitutes a bribe, how big that bribe has to be, and whether an electoral system can be corrupt even in the absence of a legally demonstrable cash payment to an office holder or candidate for an explicitly specified favor. The Roberts court, or five of its nine members, adopted the misanthrope’s faux-naïve pose in ruling that private money in politics, far from promoting corruption, causes democracy to thrive because, money being speech, the more speech, the freer the politics. Anatole France mocked this kind of legal casuistry by saying “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
(via azspot)
theliberaltony reblogged this from azspot
cattyfantastic liked this
russalex reblogged this from eclecticdreamweaver
edgar-allan-pooh reblogged this from corporationsarepeople
eclecticdreamweaver reblogged this from iammyfather
painedbrain liked this
doublejack-blog reblogged this from azspot
iammyfather reblogged this from corporationsarepeople
carlbgood reblogged this from azspot
corporationsarepeople reblogged this from azspot
erikonymous liked this
leftrants reblogged this from azspot
westernsky liked this
zenaddict-blog liked this
mangelica liked this
neverknwsbest liked this
moebithinking liked this
scudmissile liked this
shorterexcerpts liked this
escapereality liked this
fsis liked this thebesstuffonearth liked this
ifancynotyournight liked this
soiledphotos liked this
azspot posted this