The Supreme Court Hearts Oligarchy

From the cross-examination it looks like the Supreme Court will strike down Vermont's "clean election" campaign finance law. Vermont's law limits contributions to $400 for statewide officials down to $200 for state House races. Campaign spending limits are also imposed to between $300,000 for statewide and $2000 for local races.

Our lovely Supreme Court, which appears eager to consolidate political oligarchy in this country, critiqued the law during hearings this week. Roberts challenged the state to prove that there was corruption, if there was why there weren't prosecutions, and suggested that a better method would be let the voters "throw the bums out." He also demanded an example in which the positions of candidates were determined by campaign contributions.

The otherwise likeable Stephen Breyer took another tack, criticizing the Vermont law for limits which were "too low." Alito argued that this would benefit incumbents. Meanwhile the accursed ACLU joined with conservative groups in challenging the law, claiming that it unduly restricted free speech.

My longtime readers might be tired of my harping campaign finance issues, but oh well. This situation really boils my blood. The Supreme Court seems entirely uninterested that there is a de facto wealth test for office. Unless candidates ran raise sufficient money, they aren't allowed to run. Oh, they can put their name on the ballot, but they have literally NO CHANCE of winning. It's like giving a plastic straw to one kid and a bazooka to another and telling them to go fight. Yes at some metaphysical level the first kid has a chance, but not a real one. In fact he has so little opportunity that allowing him to "compete" amounts to an insult worse than barring him in the first place.

Roberts displays his customary sophistry when forcing the Vermont Attorney General to demonstrate a specific example of corruption. Corruption is not the issue, although the mere fact that voters believe there is corruption should be troubling if we think democracy is a relevant issue. The question instead is what issues are allowed in the public forum. This is what is so insidious about the "free speech" argument employed by Buckley and its defenders. Who exactly gets to speak? People who can raise or spend a lot of money. If you don't have the cash, you don't get to play. Therefore the entire public debate is shifted in the direction of those with lots of money to spend or contribute. This violates the principle of political equality that lays at the heart of the Constitution.

The idea that contribution limits could be "too low" betrays the real disregard the Supreme Court has for political equality. The most cursory examination of campaign contributions indicates that only a very small, very wealthy elite can afford to contribute thousands of dollars to campaigns. Limiting the contribution amounts to a few hundred dollars makes it (a little) more likely that the broader pool of politically interest citizens will influence who has a chance to run for office. It forces candidates to "go to the people" to raise money, and limits the ability of a few powerful interests to put their "boy" into contention. What may I ask is wrong with that?

The Supreme Court's Buckley-inspired perspective on campaign finance issues is therefore highly destructive of political equality. It limits the ability of regular citizens to seek public office and perverts the public debate. There is indeed corruption at work - not the naked corruption of the quid pro quo, but a creeping corruption in which the public forum is subtly dominated by the wealthy and powerful.

Shame on the Supreme Court. Shame.