The Big Nine Are At It Again.

There was a Supreme Court decision that I missed at the time. It was about campaign reform. The Supremes struck down an Arizona law that gave public money to candidates who were up against folks who had much more money to spend. The court said it would suppress free speech. Now how giving someone more money for advertising would suppress free speech, I'm not sure. Perhaps the thought was that somebody with lots of money against someone with little money is fair, but if the poorer candidate is suddenly given some money to help even up the chances, then somehow the person that's loaded with funding won't be able to out shout his opponent. The only conclusion I can come to is that party politics has nothing to do with it. Nor does ideology. Only the haves against the have-nots. I assume the haves should be allowed to continue to have the advantage, while the have-nots should not be given an equal chance. Sorta like saying only the wealthy or well connected should apply. Well now a similar law, this one in West Virginia, covers judicial election public funding. Should a judge with tons of money have the advantage or should the less well heeled contender get some public funding? Now as far as I'm concerned, while I don't like anyone having an unfair capital advantage, a politician for some office is one thing, but a judge? It seems to me that a judge should be above this sort of money fight. Judges should absolutely be equal in their opportunity to present their cases for election to the bench. That means both should have about the same amount to spend and no more. I await a decision with baited breath. But I won't bet on the Supreme Court.