Just how far will SCOTUS go in undoing McCain-Feingold? Mickey Kaus speculates:
Rick Hasen worries that the Supreme Court appears ready to strike down, on free speech grounds, a large chunk of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law-the part that bans corporate funding of election season broadcast ads. Amazingly, Justice Kennedy is not the swing vote on this issue, Hasen notes. He's already come out with Scalia and Thomas against the law. He's a done deal. Roberts and Alito- they're the swing votes! Yikes. Add them to the previous three and you would have a sure majority of 5 even if Obama had nominated Dahlia Lithwick to fill Souter's seat.
Hasen predicts a near nuclear disaster for the goo-goo campaign finance lobby: SCOTUS will nix the whole decades-long attempt to keep corporate and union money out of campaign ads-in effect declaring that it's OK if for-profit corporations and unions use their unlimited funds to run spots attacking specific candidates.
I'm not so sure.
After all, isn't there a pretty obvious "right" answer in these cases-at least an answer that all concerned civic-minded centrists should approve. It's this: restrict ads funded by for-profit corporations. Allow ads funded by non-profit "ideological" corporations (and regular, unincorporated individuals-even the Wylys).
The original McCain-Feingold bill, remember, banned only for-profits. There was a good reason for drawing that line: It's one thing to stop GM,say, from using the millions in profits it generates as a limited liability corporation** to meddle in electoral politics.*** It's another thing to ban political speech by non-profit groups like Sierra Club and the NRA-organizations whose purpose is to let individual citizens meddle in politics exactly as we should want citizens to meddle in politics.
It was the late, beloved and deeply misguided Sen. Paul Wellstone who broadened the original McCain-Feingold ban to include those non-profit advocacy groups. Wellstone successfully tapped into Congressional incumbents' natural desire to block any potentially damaging ad from any source they don't control. McCain and Feingold both voted against Wellstone's change to their bill. ("If I thought it was constitutional, I would have voted for it," said McCain at the time.) The New York Times ed board commanded that "The Senate must undo Mr. Wellstone's damaging amendment." But the Senate for some reason did not obey. The amendment stood un-undone.
Yet now the Supreme Court can undo it, no? That wouldn't be hard. They'd just have to embrace and apply the so-called "MCFL exception"-named after a small nonprofit corporation, Massachusetts Citizens for Life, that the Court seemingly said could distribute pro-life propaganda without limiting the size of the individual donations it accepted, as long as it didn't take for profit corporate money or union money.
And why isn't that exactly what the Court will hold in the fall when it takes up the issue (after punting on it yesterday)? One answer is that the litigant currently before the Court-a non-profit outfit that made an anti-Hillary movie- has admittedit actually takes for-profit corporate money. They've put themselves on the wrong side of the for profit/non-profit line (perhaps intentionally). If you buy the idea that Roberts and Alito really don't want to uphold any campaign finance laws, then you'd think they would have teed up a different case if they wanted to draw a profit/nonprofit funding distinction. Roberts and Alito don't want to have to say that, "Hey, McCain Feingold is OK as applied to this anti-Hillary group because of its tainted 'for profit' donations, but ...." Which leads to Hasen's speculation that what they're really going to say is that McCain Feingold isn't OK as applied to anybody-non-profit, for-profit, whatever.
The news has arrived from the Minnesota Supreme Court and the conclusion to the 2008 United States Senate election has been reached.
I want you to be among the first to know of my decision to congratulate our newest Senator, Al Franken, for his victory. And, I ask you and all Minnesotans to join with me in giving our prayers and support to our state's new Senator and his family.
You have been my hope and my strength and my courage for these past many, many months. Your prayers, your comfort and your wisdom have guided me through the most difficult times over the past 8 months.
There are not enough words to express my gratitude and that of my family for your commitment to this effort. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for everything you have done to make my life an incredible adventure.
If Republicans were wondering how their 2012 presidential candidate is going to compete against President Obama's $600 million fundraising juggernaut, the Supreme Court seems poised to provide an answer: unlimited corporate spending supporting the Republican candidate, or attacking Obama.
In a Supreme Court term that has had its share of surprises, the court saved one of the biggest for last. Rather than publish an opinion at the end of the term as expected in an obscure campaign finance case, Citizens United v. FEC, the court issued a rare order for reargument of the case in September (before the usual start of the term). At that point, the court will consider whether to overrule its two previous decisions that in 1990 and 2003 upheld limits on corporate spending in federal elections.
Given the dynamics of the court, there is a great chance the justices will use the opportunity to overrule limits on how much money corporations can spend supporting candidates'-whether or not Judge Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed in time to hear the case in September. In the Voting Rights Act case the court considered last week, the court ducked the constitutional question in favor of narrow statutory interpretation. In contrast, in Citizens United, the court is likely to address the constitutional questions head-on, and the outcome likely will not be good for supporters of reasonable campaign-finance regulation.
A fundraiser for Francine Busby, who is running for Congress, ended in chaos Friday night when sheriff's deputies responded to a noise complaint, pepper-sprayed some of the guests and arrested the party's hostess.
Shari Barman, 60, was booked into the Vista Detention Facility on suspicion of obstructing a peace officer and battery on a peace officer. She has since been released. A court appearance has been set for Aug. 11 in Vista Superior Court.
[...]
Deputies first went to the Cardiff home on Rubenstein Avenue at 9 p.m. to issue a warning after a neighbor called and complained about the loud party, sheriff's Sgt. Chuck Yancey said.
He said deputies returned later when the party hadn't quieted down, and one deputy asked for Barman's date of birth so he could file paperwork alerting the city to the noise complaints.
Sheriff's officials said Barman refused to give the deputy the information, and that's when things got out of control. A crowd of about 30 to 50 partygoers surrounded Barman when he tried to arrest her, and they were able to separate her from the deputy, Yancey said.
Pepper spray was dispersed on the crowd, and the deputies were able to reach her again. At one point, a person refused to let go of Barman's leg so the deputy could take her away. Barman also allegedly punched the deputy, Yancey said.
I have got to get an invitation to Busby's next event.
On March 19, 2009, I wrote about the results of Darden Restaurants;
My grandfather did not fare real well in the 1930's and I remember him telling me what his family had to eat. A red lobster was not on the menu in his house.
The only thing in a state of depression at Red Lobster is the lobster being eaten at a table of people talking about 'the depression.'
Please pass the butter and tell Congress while things are not the best, it is not as bad as some people are saying.
Darden Restaurants Inc. late Tuesday reported fiscal fourth-quarter net income of $123 million, or 87 cents a share, compared to net income of $101.8 million, or 71 cents a share, in the year-earlier period. Sales rose to $1.97 billion from $1.82 billion.
The must-read article of the year is Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone expose of Goldman Sachs. If you want to know who's getting rich at your expense, and at the expense of future generations, it's Goldman Sachs bankers. There's a revolving door between Goldman Sachs and Washington D.C., and when in Washington, the banksters implement policies that enrich themselves at the expense of the public. The recent Treasury and Fed multi-trillion dollar bailout debacle is only the latest example in a long history.
Go buy the new Rolling Stone. Better yet, subscribe. But if you can't wait, you can read the article here.
P.S. Fast-forward to the end of the article to see what the latest Goldman Sachs fleece-the-taxpayers scheme is (hint: there was a vote on it in Congress today).
How can these particular republicans justify voting against a finite cost "stimulus bill" but then vote in favor of a bill whose costs could make the stimulus bill look minuscule?
I hope Redstate is right;
UPDATED: Both James Inhofe and Harry Reid predict the legislation is dead in the Senate.
There is no way anyone can justify going down this path when nations like China and India are going to do absolutely nothing.
They should rename the bill as the "Made in China Economic Stimulus Act" because that's what it effectively encourages.
