Kagan: SCOTUS Ruling Against Arizona Public Financing Is 'Chutzpah'

[cal04]

Source: TPM

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona campaign finance law that offered political candidates facing well-funded opponents a subsidy to "level the playing field" and protect from public corruption.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority agreed with the five conservative politicians and two political action committees who argued that the law stifled free speech, claiming it meant they were punished if they raised too much money because the government would subsidize their opponents.

But Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, writing a dissent on behalf of the minority of the court, said that there was a major problem with the decision by her colleagues -- Arizona's matching funds provision "does not restrict, but instead subsidizes, speech."

The plaintiffs who brought the case, Kagan wrote, "are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received (but chose to spurn) the same financial assistance. Some people might call that chutzpah."



Read more: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/kagan_supreme_court_ruling_against_arizona_public.php

---

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor signed onto Kagan's dissent.
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/High-court-strikes-down-Ariz-campaign-finance-law-1441475.php

[iwishiwas]

1. The US is digging itself into deeper crap each day.

[rurallib]

2. and while we are at it, politicians cut school funding

so future generations will be too dumb to realize it.

[SpiralHawk]

3. Actually, Republicons are shoveling crap higher onto the US each day

important dis-stink-tion.

[No Elephants]

14. Republicans are not alone in that endeavor.

[indepat]

5. The felonious ones are getting feloniouser and feloniouser with alarming

alacrity, driving this country off the edge of the metaphorical cliff like lemming rushing out to sea. :patriot:

[cascadiance]

4. And the nasty thing about this is Sandra Day O'Connor STARTED this case!

She's tried to rail against Citizen's United and other decisions from this court that have worked against campaign financing reform, yet she has been one to champion screwing public campaign financing herself.

Something that seems to be kept relatively quiet, but read this article from the AZ Times from April of last year when this court case was heard then.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2010/04/21/house-panel-oks-clean-elections-repeal/

House panel OKs Clean Elections repeal

Two weeks after a House panel killed an effort to gut the state’s public campaign finance system, a revised version of the measure to end Clean Elections was approved by the same committee.

The House Judiciary Committee approved SCR1009 by a 5-3 vote along party lines. The measure includes a strike-everything amendment that asks voters to repeal the Clean Elections system in the November election.

Originally, the measure would have barred the use of “taxpayer money” for political campaigns. But it hit a snag when Rep. Steve Montenegro, a Republican from Litchfield Park, opposed it. He said the language was “dishonest” because it was crafted to garner public support but did not clearly state that the result would be ending Clean Elections.

...

The effort to end public campaign financing is backed primarily by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Government for Arizona’s Second Century, the lobbying arm of the O’Connor House Project, a group spearheaded by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Another reason why we can't even nominate "moderates" when replacing justices to the supreme court. Obama needs to get some progressives there soon or we're screwed!

[defendandprotect]

6. kr

[blueclown]

7. Will Obama's critics give him credit for Elena Kagan?

And, for that matter, Sonio Sotomayor?

[harun]

11. We need one more.

[bread_and_roses]

12. Sure I will - but so what? It does not annul everything else

It's like Cuomo in NY signing the "Gay Marriage" bill - so he did the right thing, for once - am I going to support him because he did one thing, despite all his other anti-worker/anti-union/anti-family acts? No. And I fervently hope that my Sisters and Brothers who are part of the LGBT community see through the political calculation that Cuomo made.

So Obama nominated two people who are not raving right-wing nutcases. Am I glad? Yes. Does that one act mean I will lift one finger for him in '12? Not unless a hell of lot changes between now and then. It does not trump slaughtering children with drones, for one instance, among many other acts.

[No Elephants]

15. Monsanto. Besides, neither one of them has much of a track record yet, on the court or off..

It will be interesting to see what happens when Ginsburg retires.

[theaocp]

21. No! Everything Obama do bad!

How rude. You categorize those who do what Obama wanted (keep his feet to the fire) as unthinking automatons. Come correct.

[blueclown]

24. What the hell are you talking about?

Who is saying that President Obama is above criticism? Or that he should never be criticized?

Just give credit where credit is due here, and move on. This is beneath progressives.

[theaocp]

25. You asked the question and it was a leading one at that.

Credit for them is not 100%, but it seems to be a net positive. Good for the President. That doesn't change the fact that your question was chumming the waters. Try again next time.

[blueclown]

26. No, I simply asked a question.

You are awfully sensitive over a simple question.

[provis99]

8. the Felonious Five on the Court don't give a shit about the Law.

all they care about is redistributing power to conservatives.

[fascisthunter]

9. their agenda is plain to see... Tilting Control to the Wealthy Class

and destroying what democracy we still had.

They are FASCISTS

[harun]

10. Kagan's argument is brilliant because it highlights the hypocrisy and

true motives of the corrupted Conservative justices.

[PotatoChip]

19. I agree. I'm quite impressed w/Kagan

and not only on this issue.

My question though is regarding Justice Kennedy. What's the deal w/him? Anyone know? I thought that at one time he was considered to be a reliable 'swing' vote, but lately it seems he's been voting fairly consistently w/the the conservatives. Yeah, I know he was appointed by *barf* Reagan, but I thought that overall he was considered a more 'moderate' repug.

If that ever was the case, I guess it is no more. :-(

[TomCADem]

13. Personally, I Was Thinking the Ruling Was B*&^s#$%, But She Is Lot More Classy Than Me

Finally, if we are talking original intent, I wonder how the framers, who started the revolution in part because of the massive corporate power of the East Indies Company, and its control of the British Government, would have viewed this ruling.

[No Elephants]

17. You cannot assume that animosity toward the East India Company equaled animosity toward all business

The East India Company was British and protected by the King and Parliament (and vice versa).

I hate to say this in public, but a lot of the Constitution as originally written centered around protecting colonial businessmen, like Hancock, and shippers, who had long been bothered by pirates. And, most of the big figures who provided impetus for the Revolution and who made up the Constitutional Convention were businessmen.

The Bill of Rights was something the states and individuals demanded before voting to accept the Constitution. The Framers had been quite content to leave that between the individual states (long run by royally- appointed Governors) and the citizens of the respective states.

[Bragi]

16. This ruling further silences non-corporate voices

What part of that is hard to understand?

[No Elephants]

18. Not true! Individual billionaires have almost as many rights as the businesses they control.

We've always said, "Money talks," haven't we? Little did we know it was a prophesy, though.

[Bragi]

22. Aren't billionaires more like governments?

I thought billionaires now have the right to enact laws on their own without any need for free speech, but maybe I'm reading too much into recent rulings.

[bemildred]

20. She better watch out or Scalia will grab her neck. nt

[wellst0nev0ter]

23. I Wonder What It Will Take For People To Realize

That the conservative majority is basically making up shit as they go along?