Back To The Court.

       I still don't understand the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case. They said that allowing corporations, unions and millionaires to spend unlimited amounts in elections won't affect elections or cause any unfair influence, real or imagined, so long as legislators require openness. Legislators? Require openness? Let me see. What are the chances that politicians will be willing to out their donor lists?
       If a politician is running for office and a donor says "I'll give you ten million, but I don't want anyone to know", what politician would you suggest would refuse such an offer? Oh yeah? Well what if that donor said "then sorry, I'll just have to give it to your opponent." What then? Then take the example of a donor who says it's okay to let people know who I am, but when you get elected... If you get elected and that donor shows up at your celebration party, who thinks he's not gonna have a sheet of paper with his wish list on it?
       Let me put it another way. Who thinks that any donor giving millions to a campaign isn't going to expect some consideration? Doesn't that sound like the Supreme Court was just ever so slightly naive? But Thomas Edsell, in an editorial in the New York Times today, suggests that another problem created by that decision is that the political parties will cede influence to individuals. Unwillingly, but cede never-the-less .
       Now I'm no fan of political parties, but I'd be even less of a fan of billionaires selecting candidates for high office. If you want to talk about abuse of power and influence peddling, just try that idea for a few election cycles. They already have supported the most radical candidates of this years crop. How did you think former Senator Rick Santorum and former speaker Newt Gingrich managed to compete? Just four billionaires very nearly upset the primary season this year, Shelden Adelson, Harold Simmons, Foster Friess and William Dore, nearly blew up the election this year.If these four were to put their heads together, it's fairly certain they could own an election. Especially if you threw in the Koch brothers.
       Now you may feel that the person they selected would be fine with you, but what does that do to democracy? And what if the next time around, you didn't like their candidate? What then?