UConn James Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Link Connecticut's public campaign financing program will be on trial -- indirectly, anyway -- before the U.S. Supreme Court today, when the justices will hear oral arguments in an Arizona case to determine whether supplemental grants, triggered by an opponent's spending are constitutional. There's too much machination behind these laws for me to be comfortable. When Malloy got the governor nomination in CT, the Dem legislature then increased the financing to $6M. What's to stop a majority legislature from increasing public financing by fiat? Beyond concerns for the application of the laws, why should taxpayers be forced to foot campaigns out of the general fund, especially now? This is like giving Pepsi money to run ads against Coke just because Coke puts money into its marketing dept. Based on the court's recent campaign financing rulings, it's tough to picture these laws coming out unscathed. Edited March 28, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Let's hope they get very scathed. "Public campaign financing" is nothing more than another excuse for corrupt officials to fleece the American taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) Majority on court seem skeptical of supplemental campaign grants An obviously divided Supreme Court probed the constitutionality of Arizona's public campaign finance system on Monday, considering a case that will have ripple effects in Connecticut and other states that have enacted similar laws.... The justices also sparred over whether such a system was designed to "level the playing field" among various candidates--or whether it was set up to guard against political corruption, a more justifiable public-interest goal. ... If the line of questioning at today's Supreme Court hearing is any indication, the justices appear to be headed for a 5-to-4 decision that strikes down Arizona's matching grant system--and that therefore forecloses Connecticut's ability to revive its own version of that law. Edited March 29, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I don't want my tax dollars to go to finance silly political campaigns and on the other I'm tired of "he with the most money wins" crap we currently have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I don't want my tax dollars to go to finance silly political campaigns and on the other I'm tired of "he with the most money wins" crap we currently have. agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts