One of the many problems I have with U.S. politics is that the rich often have an advantage in any electoral race. They can spend their millions out-advertising their rivals. And this presents a handicap to any candidate who might be better qualified but not rich. So, except in cases like Barack Obama, who can inspire unprecedented fundraising from the grassroots, we run the risk of ending up with rich but unqualified elected officials, like the current occupant of the White House.
The 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law (officially known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) attempted to address this through its "millionaire's amendment", which afforded special fundraising privileges to candidates who were running against a rival who spent $350,000 or more of their own money on their campaign.
But now on June 26th, in a 5-4 vote in the case of Davis v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the rich guy and declared that the "millionaire's amendment" is unconstitutional.
Money talks. Fairness walks.
Dissenting were (unsurprisingly) Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter.
No comments:
Post a Comment