The US Supreme Court has ruled to abolish overall caps on federal campaign contributions, bringing an end to most meaningful limits on the influence of money on Congress. Yeah, there’s going to be even more corruption. But think of the bright side: Congress can ask their sponsors for even more money! If nothing else, it will stimulate the economy.
From Street Walker to Call Girl
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
6 Comments. Leave new
So does this mean the first amendment protects my “right” to bribe police or pay the DMV to move me to the front of the line? It’s just my way of speaking after all.
What gets me about this is that it’s so obvious to me that the founders would not have agreed with this decision. Gun control? Yeah, I could see the founders pausing over that one. No one can argue that the founders did not understand corruption and no one can argue in good faith that the founders would have sanctioned bribing politicians. I read a book Scalia wrote a couple years ago. In it he has this great line, something like, “I don’t need to interpret the constitution, because I’m an ‘originalist’. For me, it’s easy, the constitution simply means what it says.” Uhhh, Scalia, it doesn’t say anything about money being speech. Seems to me like you’re interpreting things here.
I want to do a cartoon about your idea, Andy.
Did Scalia perhaps say, “Strict Constructionist” ?
The theory is that a constructionist reads law exactly as written, and that legislative intent means nothing. For instance, a constructionist would say that wiretaps are perfectly legal because the Constitution doesn’t say anything whatsoever about wiretaps. Whereas anyone with the brains god promised an avocado can easily see that wiretaps violate the provisions about being secure from unwarranted search.
In practice, a constructionist is someone who reads the constitution to mean the exact opposite of what it says. See Scalia, Roberts, et al.
I want to be able to sell my vote.
Elected representatives allowed to to sell their votes while giving assurances that money has no influence over their decisions.
I promise that when I sell my vote I will give those very same assurances.
The US Supreme court majority merely wished to interpret that country’s constitution so as to provide career openings to one particular category of street walkers – what’s the beef ?…
Henri
Cool! I’d love to see it is cartoon form!