[EL] Posner Attacks Roberts

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

The fibber here is actually Judge Posner who  does not acknowledge that the 
contributions involved here are limited  to amounts that do not pose the 
threat of corruption. The purported  justification for contribution limits is 
to prevent just the "substantial  contributions" that Posner says "will buy 
support."  Jim Bopp
 
_Whoa: Judge Posner  Attacks Chief Justice Roberts Truthfulness in Campaign 
Finance Case_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62770)  
 
Posted on _June 25, 2014 11:35  am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62770)  
by _Rick  Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

 
While I agree with the sentiment (as anyone who has read my writings on the 
 Chief Justice’s views in the campaign finance and voting rights areas, and 
in  fact I’ve made_  this exact same attack on the Chief Justice at 
SCOTUSBlog_ 
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-does-the-chief-justice-not-understand-politics-or-does-he-understand-it-all-too-well/) ), I am a bit  
concerned about a sitting federal appellate judge attacking the Chief 
Justice _like  this. _ 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_is_roberts_casual_a
bout_the_truth_in_the_campaign_finance.html) It diminishes the judiciary to 
have judges sniping at each other in  public. 
Does Chief Justice John Roberts show a certain casualness about the  truth?
Richard A. Posner…. 
Which brings me to Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in _McCutcheon  v. 
Federal Election Commission_ 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/04/the_subtle_awfulness_of_the_mccutcheon_v_fec_campaign_finan
ce_decision_the.html) , the decision in April that, in the  name of free 
speech, further diminished Congress’ power to limit spending on  political 
campaigns. The opinion states that Congress may target only a  specific type of 
corruption—quid pro quo corruption—that is, an  agreement between donor 
and candidate that in exchange for the  donation the candidate will support 
policies that will provide financial or  other benefits to the donor. If there 
is no agreement, the opinion states, the  donation must be allowed because “
constituents have the right to support  candidates who share their views 
and concerns. Representatives are not to  follow constituent orders, but can 
be expected to be cognizant of and  respon­sive to those concerns. Such 
responsiveness is key to the very  concept of self-governance through elected 
officials.”_*_ 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_is_roberts_casual_ab
out_the_truth_in_the_campaign_finance.html#cx)   [UPDATED]
 
Can so naive-seeming a conception of the political process reflect the  
actual beliefs of the intellectually sophisticated chief justice? Maybe so,  
but one is entitled to be skeptical. Obviously, wealthy businessmen and large  
corporations often make substantial political contributions in the hope 
(often  fulfilled) that by doing so they will be buying the support of 
politicians for  policies that yield financial benefits to the donors. The 
legislator who does  not honor the implicit deal is unlikely to receive similar 
donations in the  future. By honoring the deal he is not just being “responsive” 
to the  political “views and concerns” of constituents; he is buying their 
financial  support with currency consisting of votes for legislation 
valuable to his  benefactors. Isn’t this obviously a form of  corruption?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140626/8425ed9f/attachment.html>