On January 21st the Supreme Court ruling which lifted long held restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations brought a quick response from Congressman Tom Perriello. In a press release Perriello stated:”The Supreme Court’s divided opinion is also a highly unusual break from precedent that the same body set just a few years ago, displaying the kind of judicial activism earlier courts worked hard to avoid.” Tom obviously does not agree with this ruling and some may say he has a problem with the first amendment. Besides his problem with the first amendment he seems to have a problem with judicial activism a reference that is only brought up when a politician disagrees with a ruling. Why isn’t it judicial activism when the court restricts someone’s rights but is when it returns them to the people, Tom could you please explain that to me?
I myself am not thrilled by the amount of money that special interest groups and corporations throw at the campaigns but I also believe in free speech and responsibility. Free speech whether we like it or not should not be restricted in the manor that McCain-Feingold attempted. Of course the argument put out by those on the left and some on the right is that this will open up the election process to undo influence by big business and special interests, like that isn’t happening now. However the last time I looked big business and special interests had not been granted the vote. With the amount of technology available to everyone any individual if they desire can find out just about anything about any candidate they are interested in. People should not be basing their vote on a 60 second TV ad or radio spot; it is up to the individual to be responsible enough to know who they are voting for. Besides with the invention of the DVR who watches TV ads anyway.
Whether we have campaign finance regulations or not, until the population as a whole decides to educate themselves before going into the voting booth we will continue to send the wrong people to Washington. We had these rules on the books for the last Presidential election which was the most expensive in our history and they did not affect the ability of the unions and special interests to get their herald of hope and change elected. Obama is the perfect example of how the uninformed is fooled by the 30 second sound bite and the mainstream media.
9 Comments
Bravo, BRG.
To paraphrase a long-dead patriot: The greatest threat to liberty-limiting politicians (in BOTH parties) is an informed electorate.
Tom “Living Document” Perriello and his ilk (looking at you, McCain) love to scream about judicial activism when the verdict doesn’t suit their agenda. Pardon me, but overturning previous precedent in favor of the Constitution is EXACTLY the kind of “activism” we need in this country, if we seek a return to founding principles and a restoration of liberty.
The Supremes have been steadily eroding our freedoms since FDR packed the courts with his extreme progressive appointees, and it will take much more than one ruling to shore up the Constitution.
But, it’s (finally) a step in the right direction.
It goes even deeper than supporting “rationed rights.” He took $1.2million from DCCC who got it from…. (from ‘opensecrets’ list of the DCCC top contributors in 2008) 1) Goldman Sachs; 2) JP Morgan Chase; 3) Duetche Bank AG; 7) Citigroup, 9) Lehman Bros.
Periello has a problem with free speech because he has a problem with the TRUTH. Either he is an attorney who is clueless as to the meaning of the term judicial activism, or he is intentionally perverting the meaning to suit his position. This is because he thinks he wins points for attacking a practice which conservative abhor. What does not want to say is that he really believes that the government should determine what speech is acceptable. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make NO LAW…abridging the freedom of speech.”
and the idea that money=speech is tenuous and the idea that corporations are individuals isn’t constitutional but rather was created by a court reporter.
It is not money equals free speech it is money which produces political advertisement which is a form of free speech.
James Madison may be credited with writing the First Amendment, but he would not have characterized campaign finance reform as limiting the free speech of our citizens.
As we now have it in Virginia, corporations, political action committees (PACs) and citizens who do not even reside in a particular district; can give money to a candidate.
If we want the voices of the citizens of each district to again be heard by elected officials, we must take the following steps:
1. Restrict contributions to come only from citizens whose PRIMARY residence is within the district. This simple, yet dramatic revision, would amplify the voices of the citizens who reside in the respective districts, and restore the representative relationship between our elected officials and the citizens who reside in their areas of representation.
2. Eliminate PAC contributions.
3. Eliminate corporate contributions. Corporations are profit-making entities whose by-laws mandate that they expend money only with the expectation of a return on that investment. Corporations, in spite of their public relations propaganda exist only to make money and are not, “corporate citizens.” Only People are citizens.
4. Cap the amount of contributions to the federal limit for an individual contribution.
Write to your Delegate and Senator and tell them that campaign finance reform will dramatically reduce corruption and will enhance the ability of the individual citizen to be heard. If they do not support reform, then work for a candidate in the next election who pledges to enact campaign finance reforms as enumerated above.
Congress shall make no law…
It’s really not that difficult.
Yes, but Sam, Perriello and his Progressives in DC are going to try to. They see the ruling as not in their favor, so, they are going to correct it. In the current atmosphere, 77% of investors see the Progressives as not business friendly. Hopefully that will equate into campaign contributions from corporations that favor capitalism.
Good post, BRG.
Judicial activism is a misleading term. The Supremes primary responsibility is ensuring adherence to the constitution, the fundamental law of the land. In that vein, if they fail in this job it is not activism; it is failure. Succeeding in that job is also not activism, it is merely performing its job even if a prior court had failed.