The Supreme Court of the United States is about to make another abridgement of American freedom. The Court will hear a case on campaign finance law as it convenes a month early this year just to hear the case. In fact the hearing begins to day, Monday, September 8, 2003. The Supreme Court is hearing a lower federal court ruling which pertained to campaign finance.
This is all about the McCain-Feingold bill which purports to prevent political corruption by limiting campaign finance, which directly effects campaigning itself. The law is designed to prevent big money from ruling politics, yet, it will criminalize free speech, and the right of organizations to associate with politics at all.
“If the justices uphold the law, it could mean a major change in how political parties operate,” said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “It will be interesting to see if they accept the idea that not only actual corruption in politics needs to be addressed, but the appearance of corruption as well, ensuring public confidence and all that.”
“If the justices uphold the law.” Now there’s the tell-tale attitude of an attorney. Why, there is in fact a law, and just ask me what it is and I’ll tell you. These are the minds that rule the country.
“Appearance of corruption?” “Public confidence?” Dream on, Mr. ‘social architect’ Noble. Nothing will achieve that short of barring all campaign contributions.
I’m afraid law always tends to be liberal, in the “take away your freedom- and give it to someone else” sense. Media is of course liberal, because organizations don’t want to be sued. Media supports law, too, like praising the Supreme Court, or at least never criticizing it. But this is biased. The hypocracy is bewildering.
For example, one could say, “No person or married couple who makes less than $70,000 a year should ever pay income tax.” But we all know, it’s only those who make big money who have tax shelters, and “legally” avoid paying taxes.
It’s all set up for the rich, to bleed the middle class. The middle class bears all the burdens, including paying for all the welfare of the poor. The rich can afford to avoid paying. Appearance of evil? Public confidence?
And the Supreme Court wants to make a stink about campaign finance? What’s the point?
Noble wants us to be concerned about “appearce” of corruption? How myopic, self-righteous, and just plain stupid can lawyers be? Ideologues in ivory towers, nothing more, laying burdens on the people “greivous to be borne” but don’t lift a finger to help. (Luke 11:46)
“Oh, it’s the system,” they say. It’s not the individuals, its the system. It’s the inevitable fall-out of the system. But it’s a great system. It’s the best in the world, they say.
Well, the system is made up of individuals. So, in proportion to their submission to the larger system, they are thereby exonerated from personal responsibility? The system made me do it?
Legislators think it is their job to make laws. It’s an endless activity. But wouldn’t it be nice if some of the responsibility was to remove some laws, to do away with some laws? Shouldn’t that be part of the legal process, too? Not to add more, but to take away the useless impediments. Or how about just enforcing the law we already have?