If only we’d put up a fight against Roberts and Alito. But liberals don’t like to fight:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a provision of a campaign financing system in Arizona that gives extra cash to publicly funded candidates who face privately funded rivals and independent groups.
The 5-4 ruling is the latest in a series of decisions by the court’s conservative majority upending campaign finance laws. But, giving a glimmer of hope to advocates of limiting the role of money in politics, the court did not launch a broad attack on taxpayer-funded campaigns.

Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion dwelled on the so-called trigger mechanism in Arizona law that provides differing levels of money to publicly funded candidates based on the spending by privately funded rivals and independent groups.

The law was passed in the wake of a public corruption scandal and was intended to reward candidates who forgo raising campaign cash, even in the face of opponents’ heavy spending fueled by private money.

The court said the trigger violates the First Amendment, but left in place the rest of Arizona’s public financing system.

“Laws like Arizona’s matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand,” Roberts said.

4 thoughts on “5-4

  1. Where is the Constitution does it say that money equals speech? And that, therefore, the wealthy deserve in all cases to have more speech, with the Uberwealthy having the most speech?

    I do not get the reasoning of these whackjob conservatives.

    It seems like decision first, rationalizations second.

  2. You mean “democrats don’t like to fight”. Liberals and lefties love a good fight, which is why we’re unwelcome in the party of appeasement.

  3. There should also have been a fight over Scalia, and a stronger one over Thomas.
    And Thomas should now be impeached for his conflicts of interest and his fraudulent financial “disclosures.”

Comments are closed.