Almost Classical

This story from Politico.com indicates the real problem isn't money in politics. Over the course of the campaign, the report found, Democratic committees and candidates outspent their GOP foes $159 million to $112 million – more than enough to compensate for the money outside GOP-leaning groups contributed toward airtime. Democrats spent more, and lost a lot more at local, state, and national levels. What happened to the huge affect we were told to expect from Citizens United? It didn't happen. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision didn't seem to change spending by more than two, yes two percent . Of course, we also had several multi-millionaires wasting their own fortunes running for offices that pay under $250,000 a year. My personal theory is that problem of "revolving doors" — politicians go into lobbying, business executives go into politics, media consultants become reporters, and every now and then they rotate positions on the chess board. S...

While the Citizens United case has ignited righteous indignation on the political left, the Supreme Court ruling last week removing most caps on campaign advertising was not only the correct decision but represents a return to how our founders approached politics. Every newspaper, magazine, and "news" outlet was exempted from corporate finance restrictions even before this ruling. Why? Because you cannot limit the free press. But why should that logic apply to businesses? When our nation was founded the political parties, various organizations, the wealthy, and even many in the merchant class set about publishing "newspapers" that were little more than campaign ads. Printing was a huge business as a result. A single sheet newspaper could be prepared simply and distributed for a reasonable cost. Newspapers were named the "Middletown Press Democrat" or the "Anyville Republican Gazette" for a reason. Media bias was a given. Even small towns ha...

With the end of the recent Supreme Court term and some of its more ludicrous decisions, I thought it was time to reread the Bill of Rights to see if I missed something the Court was able to see. After carefully reading the document, which is elegant in its simplicity, I don't think I'm the one confused. How could nine highly-educated lawyers twist such simple words? Because they can rely on previous ignorant and/or stupid rulings to justify not ruling based on the words in the document. Amendment IV In the last few years, the US Patriot Act and other well-intentioned but misguided laws were passed to protect us from terrorists foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, many of these laws have been upheld by a court system unwilling to enforce the Fourth Amendment: Amendment [IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable caus...