| [I]t is one of the two best books I've read in years about the Democratic Party, its myriad problems and challenges -- Charlie Cook, National Journal
[A]n insightful guide to how the Democratic Party can retake power -- Peter Beinart, NY Times Book tour :: Amazon :: B&N; :: Powell's :: Chelsea Green
|
MN-Sen: Kennedy (R) scrubs website of all references to Bush
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:57:09 PM PDT
Ha ha, didn't Mark Kennedy get the memo that Bush is enjoying a "bump"? Because he has gone through his Congressional site and purged all references to Bush from it. Blogger MN points out the scrubbing process:
First of all, replace all pictures of Bush with smiling children. Everyone loves children.
Secondly, bills magically "become" law, rather than get signed by Bush:
"An important provision from the first bill he introduced as a member of Congress, providing grant money for rural ambulance services, was signed into law by President Bush." Now compare that to the new version, which reads, "In fact, a grant program for rural ambulance services in the first bill he introduced in Congress became law."
And thirdly, try to create a record of opposition, rather than support, for the Bush agenda. So kill:
Supported the President's Plan to create jobs and boost the economy, including accelerating the phase-in of the 2001 tax relief and ending the unfair double-taxation of dividends.
And replace with:
Successfully worked to repeal the Bush Administration's steel tariffs, which killed jobs and hurt local manufacturers.
Too bad homeboy has voted with Bush 95 percent of the time, which should go over nicely in a state where Bush's approval ratings are at 34/63.
Minnesota has a late primary (September 12), so we won't have a sure Democratic nominee until that time.
Open Thread and Diary Rescue
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:40:44 PM PDT
Diaries up for rescue tonight:
- David Grossman's Breakfast with Grover Norquist gives a first-hand account of a recent talk by the well-known conservative, and reflects on how some of the strategy he outlined can be adopted by Democrats.
- The American Prophet's Rice's Brain: The making of a President speculates that Condi may be being groomed as a possible 2008 presidential candidate, complete with a "maverick" makeover to distance her from the neocon fiasco of which she's been a central player.
- gjohnsit's History Repeating: The 2nd Anglo-Afghan War looks at Afghanistan's war-torn past as the target of imperialistic powers and concludes we are repeating the pattern: invasion is a piece of cake, maintaining stability and order ... impossible.
- Mash's A Mother Tortured reports from a teach-in on a leftist mother from Honduras who was imprisoned and tortured in the 1980's.
- Republic Not Empire's RI-Sen: Chafee is Dead Centered provides an in-depth analysis of the closing vise in which Chafee is trapped - too liberal for his primaries, too Republican for the general election.
- shirah's Talking Liberally - Being Heard gives solid advice on how to discuss issues without alienating those on the other side - and perhaps changing some minds.
- Tom Kertes' It's the Organizing, Stupid: Why organizing matter discusses the difference between campaigning (short-term) and organizing (long-term), and argues that the Democratic Party needs to get back to the long-term approach.
- Hesiod's Dems must take credit for the Iraq troop drawdown -- or lose. advocates shouting from the rooftops that Bush caved to Democratic Party demands to begin an Iraq withdrawal.
- Woodhouse's One L.A.: Street-level Politics is a first-hand account of a weekend meeting in Los Angeles of an interesting progressive grassroots organization.
- Vyan's Why Insurgent Amnesty may be inevitable grapples with the question of how much the U.S. should be able to dictate terms - including stances on amnesty - to Iraq as the country struggles to bring stability to its system.
- Kingsmen6's My first day lobbying relates how one lone Kossack citizen took matters into his own hands and went lobbying his U.S. Senators' staff, urging anti-rendition stances on his representative. A compelling and informative account of simple constituent action.
- Progressive States' Reforming Failed Tax Strategies gives an invaluable rundown on various tax strategies, those that have proven effective and those not so much, as well as upcoming legislation that could alter the "corporate welfare" landscape.
- Nulwee's They Do Vote in their Own Self Interest: Identity, Location, Lies deals with race, economics, the American dream and politics in an amazing tour de force. Highly recommended.
Add your favorite diaries from the past 24 hours, check out Carnacki's Top Comments of the Day and use this post as an open thread.
Open Thread
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:04:17 PM PDT
Get it off your chest.
Rush loooooves his drugs
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:54:32 PM PDT
CBS 4 Miami:
Sources have confirmed to CBS4 News that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been detained at Palm Beach International Airport for the possible possession of illegal prescription drugs Monday evening.
Limbaugh was returning on a flight from the Dominican Republic when officials found the drugs, among them Viagra.
Limbaugh entered a plea deal back in April in a previous case where his charge of fraud to conceal information to obtain prescriptions was dropped under the condition he continue undergoing treatment for addiction.
Limbaugh had admitted to being addicted to pain killers on his radio program and had entered a rehabilitation program prior to that arrest.
VA-Sen: let's help Jim Webb get elected
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 04:43:00 PM PDT
The Netroots ActBlue page, maintained by MyDD, Swing State Project, and Daily Kos, has added a bunch of new candidates in the past few weeks (while I was distracted by the end of the book tour and YearlyKos), and is about to grow by four candidates today.
The recent candidates are Darcy Burner in WA-08 and Patrick Murphy in PA-08. I'll write more about them soon. Today, we'll be adding Paul Hodes in NH-02, Linda Stender in NJ-07, Jerry McNerney in CA-11, and Jim Webb in the Virgnia Senate race.
Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, DavidNYC, and me are splitting up the "endorsement" posts, and I'll link to theirs when they get them up. Me, I'm happy to talk about why Jim Webb is a race-changing candidate.
It was way back in October 2005 that this Q&A interview in a San Diego newspaper ignited speculation that Webb would enter the Senate race in Virginia.
As I wrote at the time:
Plenty there for litmus test Dems not to like about Webb, he would definitely bring up the party's right flank (though he is a critic of the Iraq War). And I'm not going to waste much time speculating about what may be a throwaway comment at the end of a newspaper Q&A. But he's definitely the kind of guy that could play well in places outside Northern Virginia.
It would be brilliant for him to challenge Allen.
What would litmus test Democrats not like? Webb was a Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, and is a moderate- to conservative Democrat.
Or so I thought at the time. Since then, I've been pleasently surprised with Webb's politics, exhibit A of the new breed of pragmatic Libertarian Democrats that I think can win tough territory long ceded by Democrats to the Republicans. Gay marriage? He doesn't want government in your church. Abortion? He doesn't want government in your doctor's office. He doesn't want government in your bedroom. And, just as importantly, he's not too crazy about Big Business sticking their nose where it doesn't belong either.
A real war hero, Webb has been clear in the need for the U.S. to get the heck out of Iraq. Thanks to serving in the military, where servicemembers never have to worry about healthcare since it's provided (and it's top-notch), he knows how important it is to have a society in which people have access to affordable healthcare, as opposed to protecting HMO profits.
His top issues? I'll quote from his website, WebbForSenate.com:
There are many challenges facing Americans today: an unpopular war, skyrocketing health care costs, a shrinking job market and rising inequality in society. I believe in the strength of American character and the ingenuity of the American people. With the right leaders we can overcome all of these obstacles. America doesn't lack ideas, it lacks leaders willing to stand up and make courageous decisions.
I have fought -- and continue to fight -- to protect American values. I fought in Vietnam with the hope that the Vietnamese might share the same freedoms we enjoy. I fought as a congressional committee counselor to guarantee our veterans the treatment they deserve. I fought as Secretary of the Navy to maintain the excellence of our military. I fought, pro bono, on behalf of countless veterans and refugees, in order that they might have their voices heard in the vast government bureaucracy. And I will fight in the Senate to give all Americans the chance to achieve their dreams.
But you know what excited me about this race, more than anything? The promise of becoming a template for people-powered electoral victory. Sabato noticed something that most observers of the race missed:
Democrats made a smart, strategic choice in selecting former Reagan Navy Secretary James Webb as their nominee in a primary on June 13. Webb was dramatically outspent by high-tech lobbyist Harris Miller, and Webb didn't air a single TV ad or employ any of the usual campaign technologies, such as robo-calling.
Miller, on the other hand, spent hundreds of thousands on television, direct mail, and the usual trappings of the usual campaign.
While no one thinks television advertising and direct mail are going anywhere, the fact that Webb won the race without ANY of that stuff is shocking. (Correction: Webb did one direct mail piece.) And how he did it was even better. Webb advisor Mudcat Saunders:
[N]o question about it, the bloggers were driving this [...]
[E]ven if Webb cannot match Allen's staggering $7 million campaign kitty, the challenger has shown that he can use old-fashioned grass-roots word of mouth and newfangled Internet campaigning to spread the word about this ex-Republican military man who wants to bring Reagan Democrats back to the party of their youth.
This was people-power in action. And no, I'm not talking Daily Kos. I'm talking about the kick-ass, aggressive, and effective Virginia netroots. Fresh off their help in getting Tim Kaine elected governor, blogs such as Raising Kane, Not Larry Sabato, and VA Progressive have helped build buzz and activism for Jim Webb.
Ultimately, all of Miller's television and radio ads, all his direct mail, all his robo calls, weren't enough to overcome a truly populist movement. People matter.
(And fyi, the same thing happened in the Montana Senate primary with Jon Tester.)
So what do we have in Jim Webb? A candidate that won't be easily demonized or swift boated by the usual conservative cowards. We have a candidate who is backed by a genuine and proven people-powered machine. And we have a candidate who can win and put us one seat closer to a Harry Reid-led Senate.
And what about George Allen, the incumbent Republican Senator? Poor Georgie has spent the last few months in Iowa telling potential caucus voters how bored he is with the Senate, and how he wishes he could have been born in Iowa.
Alas, Allen has sent notice that he won't be able to visit Iowa again until after November. You see, his mistress Iowa calls him. But if Virginia finds out he's two-timing her with Iowa, she might divorce him and keep the house.
And Allen is not quite ready for that breakup. Not yet. Problem is, the state's demographic trends are running away from Republicans. Not Larry Sabato sees the trend:
In 2000 George W. Bush carried Fairfax by 6,081 votes. On the same ballot Chuck Robb beat George Allen by 16,584 votes in Fairfax.
That's a 22,665 vote margin that voted for George W. Bush yet voted against George Allen.
Since then the margin has increased every election for Democrats.
Mark Warner wins Fairfax by 26,013
John Kerry wins Fairfax by 34,041
Tim Kaine wins Fairfax by 61,497
One thing about Fairfax is that federal events (i.e. the Presidents approval rating) impact elections here in a major fashion. Since Kaine's win the President's approval rating has fallen another few points.
With the higher turnout in federal elections, one friend at the DSCC whispered a number to me that would have been unthinkable a short time ago. "If all goes right, and the President drops about five more points, and we could be seeing a 100,000 vote Webb margin out of Fairfax County".
That would do it.
Let's do whatever we can to help Jim Webb turn Virginia Blue, get us one seat closer to the Senate majority, and destroy the budding presidential ambitions of George Allen.
Update: This is what a libertarian democrat looks like. From a just-released press release on the Flag Burning Amendment:
"Jim Webb has great respect for our national flag and great respect for our Constitution, and is proud of the many contributions his family has made in defense of both. Like many combat veterans such as General Colin Powell and former Senators John Glenn and Bob Kerry, he does not believe it is necessary to amend the Constitution in order to protect the dignity of our flag. This is yet another example of deliberately divisive politics that distract Americans from the real issues that are facing our country,” said Kristian Denny Todd, spokeswoman for the Webb campaign.
CT-Sen: Lieberman campaign comes unhinged
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 04:35:09 PM PDT
You know how you know how Lieberman is running a shitty campaign? They give people like me a reason to write about their race multiple times a day! I DIDN'T want to write about this race anymore today. Heck, I'd like to take a few days off so I can focus on some other races (and yes, those posts are being written, so it'll happen).
But noooo, the Lieberman campaign has to give further blogging fodder, so here goes.
Remember this ad? The one in which Bush talks and out comes out Lieberman's words? It's in the extended body if you haven't seen it.
Well, it's brutally effective. The Hotline blog wrote:
If Lamont wins this thing, this ad will become legendary.
It's not surprising that this ad came from Bill Hillsman, who is the best political ad maker in the country, of any partisan stripe. And thing is, he's not a partisan. Having been shut out of the DC consultant racket by the beltway mafia, Hillsman has been the admaker of choice for independent third-party candidates.
People like Ralph Nader, Jesse Ventura, and Kinky Friedman. He's also worked for Democrats like Paul Wellstone (who wouldn't have ever existed without Hillsman). And you know how Democrats made huge gains in Colorado in 2004? Hillsman was behind many of the independent expenditure ads effectively bashing Republicans around the state.
Oh, and Hillsman did the great Crashing the Gate ad I have included in this post.
But smarting from the ad (and boy is it good), the Lieberman camapign issues this bizarre statement. The attacks on Hillsman are especially weird, since Lieberman supposedly is such a bi-partisan independent.
But my favorite part of that statement is this:
HERE ARE THE FACTS ON JOE LIEBERMAN:
Joe Lieberman has been a scathing critic of the Bush Administration.
I literally ROTFLOL after reading that one.
Or how about this?
Joe Lieberman Opposes Bush's Attempts to Pack the Court with Right-Wing Ideologues, including Miguel Estrada and Dennis Shedd.
Joe Lieberman Opposed Bush's Most Egregious Nominations.
Joe Lieberman OPPOSED the Nomination of Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court.
Psst, Joe -- how many filibusters did you join against those judges?
Case closed.
p.s. Ironically, the Lamont campaign turned to Hillsman after no beltway media firms would take the case for fear of being blacklisted by the Beltway Mafia. Thank god, for that, huh?
Net Neutrality Update
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:16:21 PM PDT
Just a quick reminder that mark-up of the telecommunications legislation continues tomorrow in the Senate Commerce Committee.
The Snowe/Dorgan amendment (S. 2917) will probably be taken up either tomorrow afternoon or early Wednesday. This amendment would preserve net neutrality by ensuring that
all content, applications and services are treated equally and fairly on the Internet by prohibiting broadband network operators from blocking, degrading, or prioritizing service on their networks.
The Senators who have committed to supporting S. 2917 are Snowe, Dorgan, Kerry, Boxer, Inouye, and Cantwell. The remainder of Democratic Senators on the Committee are likely votes, and the GOP Senators unknown. The most likely GOP supporters are McCain, Allen, Smith, and Hutchison.
Please call or fax these Senators (those supporting us to say "thanks") and ask them to support the Snowe/Dorgan amendment to preserve net neutrality. Contact information for the entire Commerce Committee below the fold.
Midday open thread
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:31:35 PM PDT
It's a linky sort of day, and apparently I've exhausted many of the links I had on tap in the previous two posts (meta and CT-Sen).
Fair warning, this week is the end of the fundraising period, so I'll be focused a great deal on some of the top races we should be focused on. And yes, some of them aren't even in Connecticut!
- WSJ hit-piece on Gore's movie debunked by Think Progress.
- The guy who did the Willie Horton ad for Bush Sr. is helping Michael Steele in Maryland.
It seemed a most unusual choice for Steele, the first African American elected to statewide office in Maryland and a Republican whose strategy for winning a Senate seat in a state dominated by Democrats has involved the aggressive courtship of black voters.
"Why would he go for money to those who have done us harm?" asked Elbridge James, a former leader of the NAACP's Montgomery County branch.
- I used to say that my biggest failure as a community builder was that Daily Kos hadn't gotten people hitched. Well, that's longer a problem. Leftcoast and RedMeatDem got married a few months ago. It was a huge treat seeing them in Vegas and hearing the great news since I was at the meetup in which they both first met.
- The Bush Administration trains its guns on the NY Times.
- The Tour de France begins on July 1, and this tour threatens to be the most exciting since Lance made the race about second place. A good preview of the course can be found here. If you're into cycling (or want to get into it), it's hard to go wrong with Podium Cafe, the cylcing site in my SB Nation network of sports blogs.
Meta thread
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 11:49:08 AM PDT
So Newsweek says in their title, "The Daily Kos thinks the politics of Iraq will help him shape the Democratic Party." Now read the story and tell me where I or anyone else says that "the politics of Iraq will help us shape the Democratic Party". Talk about making shit up.
Also notice unsourced assertions that I talk to the party leadership "several times a week" and that I have "brainstormed with Democratic operatives about the fall campaign". Utter fabrication. Again, yet another piece makes up stuff to make me look more powerful than I am. In DC, where power is currency, people would be thrilled with this. Me, I'd rather the people with the actual power get the credit. And it ain't me. [Update]: Eric Boehlert simply decimates the Newsweek coverage.
In any case, given reports of rabid squadrons of venom-spitting lambs roaming the internets, I thought it'd be fun to do a catch-all thread of some of the best responses.
Really, as much as people try to paint us as "angry", fact is we have a lot of fun with this stuff. We make politics fun, and do so effortlessly.
- Rude Pundit:
Markos Moulitsas looks smaller on TV than in person. He is actually seven feet tall, with hands that could crush a bowling ball. He sharpens his teeth by chewing beer bottles, and the rumor is that he shot Billmon just for snoring. He scares us all because he enters our villages and eats our livestock at night. Please help us, TNR, please end the tyranny.
- Em Dash (who, reminder, blogs at unbossed) posts a picture of her.
- Tom Tomorrow ressurects a relevant cartoon from his archives.
- Whiskey Ashes publishes more secret emails. Truly chilling. And this post is hilarious, but don't forget to play Vivaldi's Four Seasons in the background before clicking the link.
- Roger Ailes boils down the last week to one sentence. And it's a good one.
- Digby resigns the conspiracy.
- I've always feared getting on the wrong side of a James Wolcott missive. While some people hit their opponents with a sledgehammer, Wolcott eviscerates them with a scalpel. And "eviscerate" is what he does to TNR. It ain't pretty.
- For those who want some behind the scenes look at how the Contributing Editors interact with me and the site, see DarkSyde's and Trapper John's takes.
- Jeralyn Merrit of TalkLeft offers a character reference.
- Zengerle's "journamalism" was exposed for the shoddy piece of crap it was by Glenn Greenwald, using an invented email allegedly sent by Steve Gilliard and supposedly confirmed by "three sources" to further his smears. Glenn then runs a victory lap as he is vindicated. Steve Gilliard blasts TNR for its inadequate response and omerta protecting its dishonest source (assuming that Zengerle didn't simply fabricate the so-called incriminating email). Gilliard:
I used to think the TNR, despite years of scandal, had some ethics left. I am dismayed to find out differently, and first hand.
As for my marching orders for the week, I'm running a little late on putting them together. So feel free to post pictures of kittens or orchids until I get back. Tour De France previews are also acceptable.
CT-Sen: latest news dump
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 11:15:40 AM PDT
I'll do this as a linky post because there's a ton of new news from this race.
- Columnist Paul Bass in the New Haven Independent:
Joe Lieberman's reelection campaign for U.S. Senate has already been widely criticized, even by conservatives sympathetic to the candidate, for its low-grade attack tactics on Ned Lamont, the challenger seeking to wrest the Democratic Party nomination from the three-term senator in an Aug. 8 primary. In terms of outright lying, gutter graphics, and utterly misleading twisting of fact, the Lieberman campaign may have hit a new Rove-ian/Atwater-ian milestone with the two-sided glossy direct-mail flyer which Democratic voters in Connecticut started receiving at their homes on Saturday. It was the second glossy direct-mailer the Lieberman campaign sent within a week.
The Lie
"Ask Ned Lamont Why..." the back page begins.
One of the "ask whys" read as follows: "... He Hired The Former Republican Party Chairman To Run His Senate Campaign."
Not true. Connecticut's leading left-leaning Democratic Party activist, Tom Swan, runs the Ned Lamont campaign.
The flyer is referring to someone else, Tom D'Amore. D'Amore ran the state Republican Party in the 1980s. He quit in 1990 to help Lowell Weicker defeat the Republicans and win the governor's office as an independent. D'Amore is a registered independent.
He in no way "runs" the Lamont campaign. The Lamont campaign did hire his firm, Doyle, D'Amore & Balducci (the third named partner being the former Democratic speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives), to do consulting work.
Apparently, this is more of that "Lieberman integrity" we hear so much about. I just wish Lieberman would decide on attacking Lamont for being too Republican, or being too partisan Democratic. Because he can't be both, no matter how much Lieberman might wish it so.
- The Lamont campaign has a new ad: "If it talks like George W. Bush and acts like George W. Bush, it's certainly not a Connecticut Democrat."
- Time has a story on Lieberman's problem. I was interviewed for this story but didn't make it in. You know why? Because the reporter asked me why we were targetting Lieberman, and I said my motivation was Lieberman's refusal to fall in line on social security until it was obvious Bush's efforts were dead.
Apparently it didn't fit the "anti-war" frame with which the media insists on viewing this race.
- Dick Morris tells Political Wire:
I think Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) will lose the primary and will be so crippled by the defeat and Ned Lamont (D) so empowered, that he will lose the general election as an independent. Sen. Jacob Javits (R-NY), in 1980, could have avoided defeat by not fighting the Republican Primary against Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) and running as an independent. But D'Amato was so empowered by the primary win and Javits so disempowered that he won the general election with Javits running a poor third.
Lieberman's correct course of action is to withdraw from the primary and run as an independent. It is the only way he can get re-elected.
If Lieberman goes indy, the shit would hit the fan. He might have a better chance to win as an indy than in the Dem primary, but it's no guaranteed conclusion. Joe's Republican friends might feel emboldened to vote GOP, smelling the chance to replace Joementum with the real thing. And Democrats will suddenly be well-apprised of Lieberman's lack of loyalty and his breaking of his word to Reid and Schumer to remain a Democrat.
- What is it about this race that gets otherwise smart politicians like Boxer and Schumer to say stupid things? Schumer is now arguing that a Lamont victory in August would hurt Tester against Burns in November. Sirota:
The idea that a voter in, say, the critical swing area of Yellowstone County here in Montana is going to vote against Jon Tester in November because Joe Lieberman was defeated in a Democratic primary in August is beyond the scope of what can even be called "totally absurd" - it's an out and out lie, and one that could only be mouthed with a straight face in a place as sadly comical as Washington, D.C. is today.
- Meanwhile, Feingold showed us, during his incredible Meet The Press appearance, how easy it is to be a real Democrat:
SEN. FEINGOLD: I'm not getting involved in the primary. If Joe Lieberman wins the primary, I campaign for him. If Ned Lamont wins the primary, I campaign for him. I'll be supporting the Democrat.
See? It's not that hard.
- Lieberman's site is scrubbed clean of any reference to "Iraq".
Support Ned Lamont, this is crunch week, the end of the financial reporting period.
SCOTUS: Vermont Campaign Finance Law Is Unconstitutional
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:35:10 AM PDT
And this, my friends, is a splintered opinion. Nine justices, six opinions from One First Street, NE:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/...
Basically: Vermont had passed laws in 1997 (signed into law by Governor Dean) restricting both contributions to campaigns (as little as $200 to a state house candidate, up to $400 for a gubernatorial candidate) as well as strict limits on expenditures (how much campaigns could spend), from $2000 for a single-member state representative race up to $300,000 for a gubernatorial campaign.
Previously, under Buckley v Valeo, the Court had found contribution limits constitutional (if they were narrowly tailored), and expenditure limits unconstitutional.
Three justices today -- Breyer, Roberts and Alito -- determined that both sets of limits in this case are too severe, in light of First Amendment and Breyer's traditional pro-democratic process concerns. Breyer writes:
[C]ontribution limits that are too low can also harm the electoral process by preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent officeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability. Were we to ignore that fact, a statute that seeks to regulate campaign contributions could itself prove an obstacle to the very electoral fairness it seeks to promote.
They uphold the Buckley v Valeo precedent (money = speech, and therefore CFR must be narrowly tailored), but do what can only be described as quasi-legislative analysis in determining that the real-world impact of these restrictions is too much. On the expenditure limits, they reject the invitation to overturn Buckley and deny the premise that "experience . . . has shown that contribution limits (and disclosure requirements) alone cannot effectively deter corruption or its appearance; hence experience has undermined an assumption underlying that case."
The plurality employs five factors in determining that these contribution limits cause more harm to the democratic process than good:
a. The contribution limits appear to significantly restrict the amount of money available to challengers to run competitive elections.
b. The same low limits are imposed on political parties, harming the right to association.
c. The law treats volunteer expenses too harshly, In the context of very low contribution limits, this imposes too high a First Amendment cost.
d. The limits are not adjusted for inflation.
e. The record does not show a particular danger of corruption to justify such stringent limits on constitutional rights.
That's three justices, including the two new members of the Court, agreeing that campaign finance reform is constitutional in general, but just not in the way Vermont attempted it. (Add the three dissenters, and you've got at least six justices stating that this is generally constitutional.)
To get to five votes, then, Justices Scalia and Thomas (no surprise) join them to form a majority, with the separate rationale that Buckley should be overturned and these limits struck down because the First Amendment should not tolerate any restrictions related to political speech. This, they've both said before.
A sixth justice, Justice Kennedy isn't ready to go there yet, but in a brief concurrence he throws up his hands and basically says that while the three-judge-plurality's analysis is correct, these limits aren't seeming like things that the Court is competent to adjudicate, and that every time the Court okays a new campaign finance law, some new legal device (like PACs) comes in to fill the void, so, like, what's the point of trying?
On Dissent:
Justice Souter, with Ginsburg and Stevens, would have let the lower courts figure out whether the expenditure limits were working as the most narrowly-tailored option, rather than decide this himself. Believed the contribution limits were both hunky and dory.
Justice Stevens says he's ready to overrule Buckley and declare limits on campaign expenditures to be constitutional.
edited to add: NYU law professor Rick Pildes has some interesting thoughts on what this may portend for the gerrymandering cases.
KY-Gov: Fletcher's long limo commute
Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:13:12 AM PDT
Man, Fletcher (R) is doing everything he can to become the nation's most hated governor and the best pickup opportunity for Democrats in 2007.
He's corrupt (indictments all over his administration), he's blocking state employees from seeing liberal blogs (while conservative blogs get through fine), and now, we find out about his big commute:
Under a blue Kentucky sky, birds sing from the boughs of the oaks and magnolias on the Capitol lawn. People walk their dogs. Joggers pass by.
Gov. Ernie Fletcher finishes a day at the office, but instead of walking through the idyllic scene across the street to the Governor's Mansion, he gets into a Lincoln Town Car to be chauffeured to his door.
500 feet. That's the distance.
The lame excuse is security. What about other governors?
Across the country, several governors who live near state Capitols routinely walk to work. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack sometimes jogs the three miles from the Capitol to his home. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer walks, with his dog Jag, seven blocks to his office. And Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn routinely walked the 10 blocks to his office before he had hip replacement surgery.
Like Fletcher, Govs. Chris Gregoire in Washington state, Rick Perry in Texas and Haley Barbour in Mississippi routinely ride to work from their homes next door.
500 feet. If Gregoire, Perry and Barbour have 500 foot car commutes, they have no excuse either.
