As If Corporations Couldn’t Buy Enough Elections,

… now the Federal Elections Commission decides that “soft money” contributions are okay in redistricting fights. How long, O Ceiling Cat, FSM, and all the gods, will this nation suffer on under the bootheel of Bush’s legacy? Yep, this is in addition to the Citizens United ruling, which allowed an influx of limitless corporate cash, also known as “free speech,” into campaigns — and the hell with McCain-Feingold, the law of the land, said the USSC.
The FEC decision’s effects haven’t started being felt yet, but Texas is gearing up for a redistricting after the current Census.

Last Friday, the Federal Election Commission issued an advisory opinion clearing the way for so-called soft money to flow into congressional redistricting battles.
State legislatures typically redistrict every ten years, following the census. However, the Supreme Court has held that states have the ability to redistrict as often as they wish, as Texas did in 2003. The process is almost always highly political and controversial.
According to the new FEC opinion (PDF here), money spent on redistricting efforts is not “in connection with” a federal election — thereby exempting such funds from the limits imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

This is horrible news for the states and the people, although it’s probably excellent for Sarah Palin and Rick Perry (w2).

Advertisements

3 responses to “As If Corporations Couldn’t Buy Enough Elections,

  1. grahamfirchlis

    Perhaps we shoud just sell our votes. Think of it as a form of re-distribution of wealth.

    I’m gonna hold out for a gold double-eagle and a bottle of single-barrel Old Weller, drink my way through the returns.

  2. The Other Sarah

    There is a story that during one of the gubernatorial campaigns in the Good Old Days, a man was stopped leaving the poll in Hays County and accused of selling his vote.
    No, he claimed, he voted for the fellow he liked.
    But the man you voted for gave you $5, the witness said. “I saw him give you the cash!”
    “Well, stands to reason I’d like him better than the feller that wouldn’t give me anything, don’t it?”

  3. JAMES SCAMINACI III

    Actually, it is a FEC decision recognizing that we have a federal system. The federal government does not and cannot regulate what is under the proper purview of the states.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s