From CNN.com:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Vermont’s limits on contributions and spending in political campaigns are too restrictive and improperly hinder the ability of candidates to raise money and speak to voters.

In a fractured set of opinions, justices said they were not sweeping aside 30 years of election finance precedent but rather finding only that Vermont’s law — the strictest in the nation — sets limits that unconstitutionally hamstring candidates.

(UPDATE: 1:53pm EST) Adam B at dKos obviously knows more about the issue than I, and had time to deal with it in greater depth.)

Randall v. Sorrell, 04-1528, 04-1530 and 04-1697.
Before the scream, Presidential hopeful Howard Dean raised a ruckus in Vermont with campaign finance reform.

In his inaugural address as governor in 1997, Dean said money causes corruption and the appearance of it. “Money does buy access and we’re kidding ourselves and Vermonters if we deny it,” Dean announced.

In response, the Vermont General Assembly drafted Act 64, a comprehensive campaign finance reform law that limited both contributions to campaigns and campaign spending. The law passed after lengthy inquiry, with 145 witnesses testifying before the state legislature.

So get ready. Get ready for GOP money to flood our state races. Get ready for conservative PACs to flood the airwaves with their poison.
I find it interesting that the Supreme Court, and the Republicans, are ardent defenders of states’ rights UNTIL and UNLESS it does not fit in with their agendae – or their ability to buy political power.

Three lawsuits were filed challenging Vermont’s limits by groups that included the Vermont Right to Life Committee, the Vermont Libertarian Party and the Vermont Republican State Committee.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. How is it that this entire thing seemed to slip under the radar? Was it me? Was I just not paying attention?

Just another move by a political party that controls all three branches of government to solidify power and influence. Forever.
Even where it clearly conflicts with the expressed will of the people.
It’s the Golden Rule once again: them that gots the gold, makes the rules.

References:

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_rankism.htm
http://tinyurl.com/qrb4d
http://c-span.org

This morning on Washington Journal there was an interesting segment with the author of “Somebodies and Nobodies : Overcoming the Abuse of Rank” a book by Robert Fuller. ( see tinyurl )

Fuller believes there is an insidious force in America that has heretofore gone unrecognized. This “disorder without a name,” which he terms “rankism,” is discrimination beyond race, gender or educational background.  He gives it a name: rankism.

Fuller describes the various forms of rankism: scientists taking credit for the work of assistants, nursing home staff treating elderly patients poorly, priests sexually abusing churchgoers, etc. Rankism is an assault on personal dignity and should not be tolerated, says Fuller.

This struck me as an endeavor in “virtue politics” even though the author stays away from a discussion of virtue.  He’s talking about “power as control” but stays away from talking about “domination politics.”  He’s talking about “unfair advantage” but stays away from talking about fairness.

It’s really simple to understand from my point of view.  We’ve lost our virtue in pursuit of unfair advantage.  This pervasive quest for unfair advantage is rooted in our economic system, which from the beginning was the most powerful principle of our political system.

There is a provision in the Constitution which says that slaves shall be considered “three-fifths of a person” for purposes of allocating seats in the House of Representatives.  But slaves never had ANY political power.  So what this meant is that if a slaveowner increased his stock of slaves that he received an increase in political power.  That means “money buys power” which is still the operative meme of our society.  Take a look at our elections.

Money is an inherently unfair method of distributing power in society.  It favors the rich.  It’s easier to make money when you have money.  We rarely talk about how the rich can sit back in liesure and have their wealth increase without doing “one stich of work.”  Money is unfair by it’s nature.

We’ve built a society on money ( capital ) and
capital is inherently unfair and produces indignity by its nature.  The lesson of money is that it is “OK” to seen unfair advantage over others.  Indeed, that’s the way most people “succeed” in this capitalist political economy.

So while we might all rally behind Mr. Fuller’s
quest for a society based on human dignity, we are rolling a rock uphill within this economic paradigm.

How about rewarding people based on the helpfulness of their contributions to society?
That would be a different paradigm and produce a more dignified society.  But, of course, if you were a rich person living off of your “investments” you wouldn’t get much dignity because you wouldn’t be doing anything that was
helpful to others.

Oh, excuse me, you would be “managing your investments” for the benefit of humanity.  Or would you be managing them for your own unfair advantage?  How would we ever know the difference?

It’s a argument.  Sounds pretty Republican to me.

Upon relfection, I think Mr. Fuller’s book is a diversion from the truth rather than an explication of it.  Honor is a virtue.  Mr. Fuller fails to honor the truth by telling the BIG  truth … money produces oppression which is undignified by its nature.

Teach Virtue!  It’s the better way.

Steve Moyer

It’s Sunday night, it’s been a beautiful weekend, and I’m just up waiting for my cheesecake to be done for my book group , the Montburries, going strong since 1975,  meeting tomorrow night. So rather than post something substantive I’ll just invite you to hop over here to take a little quiz that tests your ability to distinguish Ann Coulter from Adolph Hitler.

A warning: it’s not easy!