Thoughts from
San Diego on Law, Politics, and Culture

 
Guardian of our liberties does it again
By Tom Smith

I have not read the Campaign Finance Case Opinions and do not plan to. If I can spare the time to read 60,000 words by (largely the law clerks to) second class minds struggling with a mess made by Congress, I think I'd rather spend the time reading, oh, gosh, I don't know, maybe this excellent biography of Vince Lombardi. Reading the New York Times on the decision was bad enough. They noted the swing vote was cast by our favorite cowgirl, Sandra Day O'Connor, the only justice, the Times smugly noted, who has ever served in elected office. I think she was posse leader back in Cowbone, Arizona or something. Those doggies know a thing or two about money and politics, I can tell you. Would somebody please tell her it is time to retire and start boring the hell out of students at the U of A?

I am not an expert on campaign law. It is one of those areas, like employment discrimination, I prefer just not to think about. From reading the daily prints, however, I take it the geniuses on the high court have concluded that, for example, if a bunch of private citizens put together a group called "Don't Vote for Congressman Bob; He's Corrupt, Inc." and then buy an ad that says "Don't Vote for Congressman Bob; He's Corrupt!" anytime close enough to the election to make a difference, it will be illegal. Why? Because allowing that would, yes, you guessed it, promote corruption!

If BCRA, as the monstrosity is known, was really intended to reduce corruption in politics, it raises the following intriguing puzzle: Why on earth did Congress pass it? Aren't they for corruption? Don't they like it? Profit from it? Do it for a living? I have seen the fat men from the plains chasing their aides around the tables at Bullfeathers as their horrified (hopefully soon to be former) wives looked on in horror. I have seen the Great Manatee of Hyannis Port rise up on his hind flippers to denounce immorality. I know of corruption. Children, here, as nearly as I can make it out, is the deal. BCRA makes it harder for challengers to say harsh things about those fine gentlemen and ladies who occupy their spots in the great domed playground where the people get governed. To my innocent eyes, this is what the bill seems designed to do. We should be grateful things designed by Congress rarely work.

What I can't understand is how the Supreme Court could possibly reach this decision. After all, they are not stupid people. Well alright, O'Connor may be stupid. And Kennedy. Stevens, well, no rocket scientist he. But there's David Souter. Is he smart? I don't know. Every time I try to read something he has written, I fall asleep. I still get traumatized thinking about Virginia Bankshares.

But, boy, I am sure glad that devil Bob Bork is not on the Court! He thought the first amendment applied only to political speech! Sure dodged a bullet there! I guess when we weren't looking, the mainstream took a turn through Cowbone, Arizona, and it turns out the first amendment does not apply to things like saying Congressman Bob is Corrupt, at least before an election! Good to get that learnt. I am just embarrassed about how confused I was about that. It's not my area, as I said. I had this whole "free-speech--politics--say-what-you-want-about-the-government,-it's-America-after-all" thing going on in my head. That mainstream is a tricky, deceptive thing. Now I will be free to look at my fake images of 11 year old girls being raped, free from government interference, as long as I don't mess with Bob's job.

William Buckley used to say he would rather be governed by the first 500 people in the Boston phonebook than the faculty of Harvard. How about any 9 lawyers, or any 9 people who can read "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"?
posted by thomas at 12/12/2003 11:36:00 AM