A Stitch in Haste

Here's what I wrote back in September 2005 about the Supreme Court's review of Vermont's draconian campaign finance limits:

In any event, wouldn't it be grand if the Court used this opportunity to revisit and reverse the schizophrenic holding of Buckley and rule that people have a unlimited First Amendment right to spend their money as they see fit?

Here's what actually happened:

In a fractured set of opinions, justices said they were not sweeping aside 30 years of election finance precedent but rather finding only that Vermont's law -- the strictest in the nation -- sets limits that unconstitutionally hamstring candidates.

Oh well.

I have little to say that I didn't say back in September, and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and its progeny -- including this case -- remain on my list of the ten worst Supreme Court cases. Money is money, and money is speech, and people have a First Amendment right, whether or not politicians and judges acknowledge it, to contribute their money to candidates, campaigns and parties as they see fit. The idea that Michael Bloomberg can spend $70 million to get elected but I can't spend even one percent of that to oppose him demonstrates just how pathetic and moronic this whole tangle of statutes and cases is.

There were six different opinions in today's case. Like I said in September: schizophrenic.

The case is Randall v. Sorrell, 04-1528, 04-1530 and 04-1697 (PDF - 70 pages)