Howard County Blog

A Blog on what is going on in Howard County

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The Election Auction or Who Will Give Me 10 Million For The Governor's Office? Going Once, Going Twice, Sold!!!

The Washington Post reported that the Supreme Court has ruled in Randall v. Sorrell against a law in Vermont which restricted campaign contributions in state elections.

The Supreme Court struck down Vermont's strict limits on campaign contributions and spending yesterday, in a splintered ruling that left intact the constitutional basis of current campaign finance laws but may make it difficult to put new curbs on money in politics.

The Vermont law was a challenge to the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling by the Supreme Court which in effect equated speech and campaign contributions, that is, money. And since this type of “money” is speech, it cannot be easily restricted; at least that is what the majority of the court thinks.

So I got an idea, why don’t we save all of us taxpayers money and save the courts time by eliminating elections. We can replace them with a public auction for political offices with the highest bidder getting “elected”. On second thought, I guess we have a form of that system already.

If you disagree with the majority of Supreme Court and believe that there is too much money in elections, then check out the Public Campaign site to do something about it.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm very liberal, but oddly enough, I think the Supreme Court got this one right. People should be allowed, under their First Amendment guarantee of free speech, to openly use their resources to make their opinion known. If they want to express their political opinion and spend their money to do it, that seems ok to me.

That said, there should be guarantees that we can easily and accurately see who is paying for campaigns, campaign ads, etc.

Where it gets a lot fuzzier is which "entities" should be allowed to contribute to campaigns. Another Supreme Court ruling (a very controversial ruling) back in the 1800's, essentially gave corporations the same rights as people. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with corporations being able to toss a bazillion dollars into a campaign.

8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the supreme court followed the constitution we wouldn't even have this debate on campaign finance. But when corporations have equal rights as citizens under the constitution then the rest is posturing. Like Bush said the constitution is just a g_d piece of paper. It takes a moral people to enforce the ideas in the constitution. But getting down to brass tacks, elections should be turned over to the private sector and auctions should be held on e-bay. Winner takes all.

5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

best regards, nice info » » »

10:39 PM  
Blogger Minko Chen said...

marc jacobs
mlb jerseys
coach outlet store
nike air huarache
tods shoes
michael kors uk outlet
mulberry bags
pandora outlet
ray ban outlet
ray ban,rayban,occhiali ray ban,ray-ban,ray ban occhiali,ray ban sunglasses
oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton bags
rolex watches outlet
true religion outlet
nike air huarache
juicy couture tracksuit
ghd uk
discount oakley sunglasses
oakley sunglasses canada
true religion outlet
104minko

12:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home