Posted by
D W W Robertson on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:21:48 PM
BY Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY (4/22/2008)
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices fiercely debated the constitutionality of the "millionaires' amendment" of federal campaign finance law Tuesday in a case that revealed the justices' tensions over congressional latitude to regulate campaign financing.
The provision at issue was enacted as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002… usually candidates may receive only up to $2,300 from an individual contributor. If a candidate is running against a rich "self-financed" opponent, he can receive up to $6,900 per individual contributor.
......................................................................................................
As we have already discussed on this blog, this government control on our lives is an affront to the American value of freedom of speech, which is of greatest importance on matters of politics. One would not want to live under a government that prohibits criticism or redress of grievances.
Justice Scalia questioned the government’s role in “leveling the playing field” this way: “What if one candidate were more eloquent, he asked in a hypothetical vein, could the government make him speak with pebbles in his mouth?”
The bigger problem illustrated by this discussion is that when the government takes it upon itself to set controls on the American public, it is resigned to revise and amend the established provisions endlessly. The original law had the unintended consequence of allowing only the incredibly wealthy to run for office. So, an amendment has been proposed to correct for that consequence. One must wonder, why introduce the regulations in the first place? Government has overstepped its bounds and it only continues to grow. More laws breed more laws. Restrictions breed more restrictions. The freedom of the American people hangs in the balance.