The Supreme Court snuck in a final ruling at the last minute yesterday, issueing a decision in the case of Davis v Federal Election Commission. Davis, a wealthy New York Democrat, lost a couple of elections in which he spent a great deal of money. He argued against a state law that allowed his opponents, once Davis had put more of his millions into his kitty (information which was exposed to the public as part of this law), to raise money of their own beyond the normal spending limit. He was denied at the district appeals level but appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor.

 

The New York Times has a write-up here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27money.html?ref=us

What are the parameters defining the label "wealthy new york democrat," and how is that relevant to a decicision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America decision?

 

 

 

This is almost precisely what I mean when I suggest that we need to raise the level of political discourse in our country. Though, if I continue saying such things, I might inadvertently be accused of patriotism.

Why wouldn't that be relevant? It wasn't a pejorative; the whole point was that he spent millions of dollars of his own money on his own campaign. The law was designed to balance things out for the "little guy" when that happens.

 

It's a little thing called "campaign finance reform". Read the link.

Ah.,.. this ruling does not make sense in the context of the rest of the McCain-Feingold laws.

 

So now, millionaires can donate as much money as they want to themselves, but their opponents still are restricted to the $2300 limit per person.

 

The only way this decision makes sense, is if you get rid of the whole thing. Otherwise, you're allowing millionaires to buy the election, without giving the other guy the opportunity to at least raise decent funds.

 

Also, it doesn't seems to say what would happen if you have two millionaires running against each other.