Freedom

I'm not a lawyer. Surprised? Too much work, too much school. But I do love the law, and read about it often. So I was not surprised when I found this critique of Sonia Sotomayor from conservatarian blog Point of Law:

I suggested hope that she might apply such strong free-speech views to cases involving campaign finance restrictions.

Alas, we now know better. A former member of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, Sotomayor has written aggressively in favor of strict campaign finance regulation:

The tolerance in this country for questionable behavior by public officials is illustrated by the persistence of extremely troubling--but legal-- practices in the public arena. In one of the murkiest and least well-controlled areas, we find ourselves debating what the quid pro quo's are for campaign contributions. Here we have abandoned standards we would surely apply in any other context. We would never condone private gifts to judges about to decide a case implicating the gift-givers' interests. Yet our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates' campaigns, raising again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes and how legislators or other officials can operate objectively on behalf of the electorate. Can elected officials say with credibility that they are carrying out the mandate of a "democratic" society, representing only the general public good, when private money plays such a large role in their campaigns? If they cannot, the public must demand a change in the role of private money or find other ways, such as through strict, well-enforced regulation, to ensure that politicians are not inappropriately influenced in their legislative or executive decision-making by the interests that give them contributions. (footnotes omitted)

As I read her comments, Sotomayor seems either woefully ignorant of or utterly unconcerned by the centrality of political speech to the First Amendment, and the pretty self-evident notion that monies spent on or donated to campaigns constitute political speech.

Crap. simply crap. I know, having buckets full of money entitles one to buy a big house, a private jet, a fancy car. But the weird fetish of the right that political contributions are "free speech" makes no sense at all.

Until one understands that they want, they encourage, government takeover by the wealthy, and the corporations. Then it all makes sense. Bribery as a public policy is a feature, not a bug.

Clearly the writers of the 1st & 14th amendments had no intention of these laws being used for this purpose. It is a perverse agenda-driven analysis that sees a wealthy person's contributions to a political campaign as being worth more that someone donating pennies. Yet the conservatarian right continues to sound this cry, that being able to donate $1,000,000 to Sen. X's campaign will give you a quid pro quo with Sen. X after he/she is elected.

Yes, you can donate anything you want to a campaign. No, you can not expect anything in return except that your dollars are sepnt by the campaign.

Fools, idiots, bastards.

Telephone line, give me some time, I'm living in twilight

Chris Dodd has shown some real leadership, unlike the actual leadership in the Democratic Party. While he is a long shot for the nomination, Dodd has certainly won some serious points with his latest move to filibuster the deeply flawed Telecom Amnesty FISA bill:



From an email

Dear Stephen,

Are you willing to go to the mat to restore the Constitution?

Just last night, we heard there are plans to disregard Senator Dodd's intention to place a hold on a FISA bill that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies.

That would be a pretty extraordinary move, but Chris Dodd has pledged to stop this horrible bill any way he can.

So if the hold is not honored, he is prepared to go to the Senate floor and filibuster.

Rolling back the Bush Administration assault on the rule of law has been a major focus of Chris Dodd's work in the Senate -- and it's also a centerpiece in his campaign for President.

Commentor Shoephone adds:

Chris Dodd is a real man. Harry Reid is a diseased little weasel.

I would be quite happy with an Edwards/Dodd ticket.

Meanwhile, the Courage Campaign and Act For Change issue a challenge to another Senator from here in CA:

In August, California Senator Dianne Feinstein helped the Bush administration push through Congress a bill that made the warrantless wiretapping of Americans legal. Many Democrats -- with Feinstein leading the way -- voted for the bill because they feared they would be seen as soft on terrorism if they stood up for the Constitution.

The bill only authorized warrantless wiretapping for six months, and now Bush is pressuring the Congress to renew the bill and add language that would grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies who were complicit in his illegal spying program.

Bush wants amnesty for the telecom companies to thwart civil liberties lawsuits and cover-up his own lawbreaking. If these lawsuits aren't allowed to go forward, we may never know the extent of the Bush program to spy on Americans.

Urge Senator Feinstein to stand up for civil liberties and not let the telcos off the hook.

DiFi always takes the side of Big Business against the people's interests, so let's see what this does to move her closer to reality. But is it all really about cash?

Wired has this about Jay Rockefeller's principled position vis-a-vis telecom immunity:

Top Verizon executives, including CEO Ivan Seidenberg and President Dennis Strigl, wrote personal checks to Rockefeller totaling $23,500 in March, 2007. Prior to that apparently coordinated flurry of 29 donations, only one of those executives had ever donated to Rockefeller (at least while working for Verizon).

In fact, prior to 2007, contributions to Rockefeller from company executives at AT&T and Verizon were mostly non-existent.

But that changed around the same time that the companies began lobbying Congress to grant them retroactive immunity from lawsuits seeking billions for their alleged participation in secret, warrantless surveillance programs that targeted Americans.

So Reckefeller is willing to sell us out for $23k? I had no idea Senators could be bought that cheaply.

And Jane at FireDogLake adds this:

Harry Reid himself took $22,000 in contributions from AT&T between 2001-2006. OpenSecrets reports that he also owns between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of stock in Dow Jones U.S. Telecommunications Sector Index Fund, the largest holdings of which are AT&T and Verizon.

Seems too cheap. Maybe we can figure out a way to funnel some $$ to these idiots to insure some loyalty.

Bastards. (Not Chris Dodd, he's riding a white horse right now).