Appalling Dissent in Millionaire's Amendment Case
Yesterday, I wrote how depressing it was to read the dissent in the millionaire's amendment. I looked at it again today, and I felt worse than yesterday. It's appalling. Spine chilling.
I'm not the only one who thinks so. Bob Bauer calls it a "woefully unsatisfactory performance, and it is, in places, bizarre." How true!
Referring to a particular point in the opinion, Bauer later says "Commitment to logical argument would ask of Stevens that he show how these differences should no longer matter in defining Congressional power to regulate campaign finance." Then he notes that Stevens writes as if "its self-evident power, its moral power, renders further logical, constitutional argument necessary."
If I were a law school professor and one of my students turned in an opinion like this, I'd flunk him. The "opinion" reads more like a New York Times editorial than a legal opinion. Actually, the Times might present more logic, and as we all know the Times has been notoriously illogical on the issue of political speech.
The Center for Competitive Politics says "Reading the dissent by Justice Stevens, however, should send a chill down the spine of anyone who values political speech free of government management. In his dissent, Stevens explicitly endorses the idea of limiting the quantity of speech in politics. Apparently, all of the ads filling the airwaves encouraging voters to support one candidate or oppose another, or care about this issue or that one, hurt the Justices preference for an 'orderly debate,' as he puts it."
The Center essentially calls the opinion Orwellian, jokingly adding this line to part of the dissent, "Oh yes, and Emmanuel Goldstein is a traitor to the people of Oceania."
My jaw dropped lowest at the part of the dissent where he compares voters to judges. Huh?
He says that judges limit the lengths of briefs to a certain number of pages. Oral arguments are limited in time. The voters deserve the same courtesy. Let's not bother them to endless ads, soundbites and debate. So Congress can limit spending, but not what the candidates can say.
What is it about "Congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech" that Stevens and the other three dissenters don't understand?
His idea that Congress can and apparently should limit speech is music to an incumbent's ears.
I guess Justice Stevens hasn't priced things lately. It's getting really expensive to speak to people effectively. Ad rates, up. Postage rates, up. Gas prices for canvassing, up.
FEC contribution limits on PACs like the Club's PAC have been frozen since 1974. If the $5,000 contribution limit were adjusted for inflation, it would be nearly $22,000 today.
Leave aside the insanity of capping spending on speech. Congress would pass a cap, and then leave inflation to make speech a whisper over time. They would love it.
To think there are four votes on the Court today to give Congress carte blanche to regulate speech if tied in some way to an election, that is both appalling and frightening.
