Friday, December 12
I agreew ith Travis' post about the Supreme Court's campaign funding decision, but EJ Dionne does not:
The majority decision, written by Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, is refreshing because it resolutely avoids mystifying abstractions and faces the political world squarely as it is. Writing for the five-justice majority, Stevens and O'Connor asked whether those large, unregulated campaign contributions that pass under the label of "soft money" have had "a corrupting influence or give[n] rise to the appearance of corruption."Even assuming that characterization is accurate of the "political world squarely as it is," I have this haunting impression that the Court is supposed to reflect the Constitution squarely as it is. But I guess not, so long as they focus on "reality."
And the reality is, actually, that Republicans, though they "lost" this round, will most likely be the long-term winners under the new system. See this interesting Atlantic article for a more complete explanation. As for Dionne, he calls this view "unseemly and foolish," unseemly because the decision "struck a blow for freedom" and foolish because, as I understand it, without this reform the Democrats would be even further behind the Republicans. Casting around a bit, aren't we, EJ?