Do you think it would be a fair characterization of this law to say that its purpose and its effect are to produce less speech in political campaigns?As I mentioned in my post last night, Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy will most likely strike down the Arizona Clean Elections law. This will expand their tainted concept that money equals speech and that the more money someone has the more speech they get.
I truly wonder how they sleep at night, twisting the very ideal of free speech in such a convoluted manner in regards to elections. They won't allow a student not on school property to hold up a sign promoting the use of marijuana but they will allow the free and unadulterated flow of money into political campaigns.
Today's oral argument was a sad day for the United States and the ideals it was built upon. When the decision is handed down, unless by some miracle, it will be an even sadder day.
*UPDATE* Dahlia Lithwick over at Slate has a nice summary of today's oral arguments.
There are probably only about 10 guys in America who are cheerfully unconcerned about the influence of multimillionaires on elections. One of them is Charles Koch. David Koch is another, as is Karl Rove. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and the guy with the top hat on the board of the Monopoly game are two more. Luckily for them, the other five guys currently sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. And judging from this morning's argument in McComish v. Bennett, there is no principle those five justices will fight harder to preserve than the right of the impossibly wealthy to purchase as much speech as they want and need to win a political campaign.*UPDATE 2* Here is a link to the transcript of today's oral arguments.