Adonis Diaries

US Supreme Court on Presidential Contribution: “Unlimited spending on negative ads…”

The US citizens have been exercising successive pressures to limit the influence of money of the elite 1% class on selecting the candidates in campaign contributions.

It is obvious that money contribution selects the candidates for the final show down, on the assumption that it is the “people” who has the final say in selecting between the final two contenders of the two main parties.

For a century, there has been slow but steady improvements to reforming election contribution.  For example, Theodore Roosevelt prohibited in 1907 the large companies to directly contributing to candidates.  During the last Obama campaign, the little people amassed enormous cash flow with small amounts.

Lately, the Supreme Court butted in and upheld that “monetary contribution is a form of free expression…” such as free speech and writing of the richest citizens?

Sure, contributing money is a serious form of expressing opinions, but the Supreme Court took the extra step for codifying how the collected contribution should be spent. And what are the constraints?

The Supreme Court opened the door wide for establishing “Super PACS” with the specific purpose of collecting “unlimited” amount of contribution.  And what are the constraints?

First, the “Super PACS” must be “independent” of the campaign staff of the candidate.  Like, the head of the “Super PACS” that contributed $5 million to Newt Gingrich in South Carolina was his former spokesman…Most of that contribution was from a single rich person…

Second, all “Super PACS” contribution money should be spent on negative ads.  For example, the “Super PACS” can generate contributions from the rich in outside States, as long as the money is spent on negative images of the candidates in the other States…

Do you think the Supreme Court is being captured by the financial multinational liberal capitalists?

Something is going awry in this formation of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is another branch of the power-to-be, and if all the branches at a particular period converge on a consensus, dictatorship is well rooted.

Should the citizens start another campaign of Occupy the Supreme Court?

In any case, the people have this right, guaranteed by the Constitution and confirmed by Supreme Court to occupy the Court.

Note: Post inspired from an article by Hisham Melhem in the Lebanese daily Al Nahar