January 21, 2010
David Prosser, meet Teddy Roosevelt
John Nichols reminds us that Teddy Roosevelt called for full public financing of federal campaigns way back in 1905 (I think that was during Tommy's first term). Teddy told Congress, "All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law."
Teddy and Bob LaFollette understood the motivation of corporate officers; understood that their only fiduciary duty is to serve the owners of the corporations not the people of the land; understood that corporations could purchase any election. They understood that a corporation is formed to make a profit--not to seek public office or advance the public good. (See AIG, Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bank.)
I never tire of reading the quote from Wisconsin's Chief Justice Edward Ryan, in 1873: "The question shall arise, and arise in your day, which shall rule, wealth or man, which shall lead, money or intellect? Who shall fill public stations--educated and patriotic free men or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?"
Justice Ryan understood that corporations were boldly marching, not "for economic power only but for political power." Justice David Prosser has a different view. He argues in his proposed rule on recusal that "campaign contributions to judicial candidates are a fundamental component of judicial elections." He argues that automatic recusal "would create the impression that receipt of a contribution automatically impairs the judge's integrity." (Yes indeed.) The effect would be to "discourage the broadest possible participation in financing campaigns." (Actually, public financing achieves that goal quite nicely.)
Automatic recusal would, in essence, deny the citizen/litigant/corporation "access to the judges they help elect." Wow! Stay tuned; read the Nichols posting, read Justice Prosser's proposal. Decide for yourself.
post a letter about this blog »
Candidates certainly go through extreme measures to get elected. What is the fascination with public office anyway? Very few politicians ever become Ted Kennedys. Most serve and then disappear, their accomplishments are few and soon forgotten. After a few election cycles, even those who have served are not remembered.
One would think that public campaign financing is the simplest and easiest way for any candidate to run for office. All the candidate would have to do is write speeches and pray that someone is listening.
The candidate wouldn't even have to sit through all those bad meals or deal with the many brown-nosed political wannabes and people looking for favors.
Elections would be clean and candidates might even be elected on merit. Doing a great job in office might even assure the candidate of another term.
Unfortunately, money IS money and it's a commodity loved by so many. The system we have is doomed to remain the same and controlled by those who have it.
-Franz Fripplfrappl | Stoughton, WI | January 21, 2010
Wow! Were you guys, Ed and John, on target...
I shouldn't be shocked and surprised at what the conservative majority on this SCOTUS can and does do - but I am still shocked and surprised.
Now - how do we get around this disaster? Senator Feingold, we need you now more than ever!
-John Smart | Park Falls WI | January 21, 2010
Having run for state public office twice allow me to offer the following.
1.)Pubic financing, no thanks. The taxpayer gets to pay for people he would never vote for and I don't think that is fair. In the interest of disclosure, I did take the state financing grant in both races but only because I knew my opponent would be rolling in PAC dough. I was naive and a poor fundraiser and the party was little or no help.
2.) Limit expenses. I fail to see why anyone would have to spend more than 15-20,000 for a State Assembly or State Senate race. Even that amount seems high but having been there and seeing what decent printing and mailing costs I can assure you it is reasonable.
3.) Maybe we just need to vote for the guy who raises the LEAST and put them in office for a few election cycles. Who knows, there might even be an inverse situation going on here. Better government for lower campaign fund raising. Given our current situation it might be worth a try.
4.) Corporations are NOT people. Anyone who says or claims otherwise and acts or votes accordingling is essentially corrupt and should be treated as such. And by the way, thanks for nothing Senator Feingold for your vote to confirm Chief Justice Roberts.
-Griebnotz Doerkpfester | Egg Harbor, WI | January 21, 2010
So much for the principal of stare decisis with the Roberts Court in the campaign finance ruling. The Warren Court was accused of legislating from the bench. This is the same concept, isn't it? Except the Warren Court advocated for the most vulnerable in society, not the most wealthy!
-Eznarf | Waukesha, Wi.(Beloiter, by birth!) | January 21, 2010
current
--------
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003