Supreme Court For Sale

US Supreme Court For Sale “SOLD”

US Supreme Court blocks Ariz. campaign finance law

By PAUL DAVENPORT (AP) – 1 day ago

PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court derailed a key part of Arizona’s campaign finance system on Tuesday by at least temporarily blocking extra money for publicly funded candidates outspent by privately financed rivals or targeted by independent groups’ spending.

The court said in a brief order that it will prevent the state from using its system of so-called matching funds at least until the justices decide whether to hear the full appeal of opponents of the key provision of the state’s campaign funding system.

Distribution of matching funds was to start June 22, but it could be the fall before the court decides even whether to accept the case. Arizona’s primary election is Aug. 24.

Publicly funded candidates get matching funds when they’re outspent by privately funded rivals or targeted by independent groups’ spending.

Critics contend matching funds chill free-speech rights of privately financed candidates and their contributors by inhibiting fundraising and spending.

Arizona will be able to have its first elections in 10 years without having the government place its thumb on the scales in favor of publicly financed candidates,” said Bill Maurer, an Institute for Justice attorney helping represent opponents of matching funds. [emphasis added]

State officials defend matching funds, saying they help combat contributions-for-favors corruption and encourage more people to run for office. Also, blocking matching funds would be disruptive to candidates already committed to running with public funding, officials argued.

“I’m deeply surprised that they would take this action in the middle of the election,” said Todd Lang, executive director of Arizona’s public campaign finance system.

Lower courts split on whether matching funds are constitutional. Two other states, Connecticut and Maine, have similar provisions in their public campaign finance systems.

The case was eagerly watched by candidates in Arizona for states offices from governor to legislative seats because the blocking of matching funds opens the door for privately financed candidates to dramatically outspend publicly funded rivals.

In the Republican primary for governor, wealthy businessman Buz Mills’ largely self-funded campaign has already spent more than three times’ the amount of public funding provided incumbent Jan Brewer.

Gubernatorial candidates running with public funding get a basic allotment of $707,000 for the primary and were also eligible for up to $1.4 million — two times the basic allotment — in matching funds. Publicly funded candidates for down-ballot offices get smaller amounts of basic funding and also are eligible for corresponding amounts of matching funds.

Nearly half of the state-office candidates who qualified to run in the primary were running with public funding. Candidates qualify by collecting $5 contributions from voters, the number depending on the office sought.

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed from Washington.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

So–public campaign financing “chills” corporate free speech? Boo hoo!

How long until the exercise of “one person, one vote” is also too chilling to the corporate free exercise of “one buck, one vote”?

The progressive answer to this is that “People vote, corporation’s don’t, so people and corporations are fundamentally different.”



On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

We Move to Amend.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

  • Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
  • Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
  • Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.

Signed by 82,488 and counting . . .

You can also sign a petition at:

Poor Richard

Money = speech?

Logical Fallacy of the day:

False analogy or false equivalence: False analogy is an informal fallacy applying to inductive arguments. It is often mistakenly considered to be a formal fallacy, but it is not, because a false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument.

False Analogy Examples: money = speech, or corporation = person

How about this logic: Money is speech + Speech is free = Money is free

The US Supreme Court seems to have based their Citizens United decision on that venerated principle of jurisprudence, “money talks”.

But if “money talks”, why is money = speech a false equivalence or false analogy? Because money is to speech as gasoline is to fire–

two completely different things!

In the real world money is not speech. Money is property!



Re Citizens United v. FEC

Dear US Supreme Court  Justices,

They say “talk is cheap.”  I guess its time for each citizen to “put his money where his mouth is”. So just how much does a Supreme Court opinion cost now?

Poor Richard



Debate: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (


%d bloggers like this: