One Small Step For The SCOTUS.

       Isn't it interesting that the U.S. Supreme court decided that Florida could prohibit judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign donations. The reason they gave was that "Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballet." And that their authority depends on the public's confidence in their integrity and impartiality, according to the New York Times.
       What chief Justice Roberts said, however, is that since they have no power or influence over the purse or the sword they should not be allowed to ask for donations personally. Isn't it odd that it is apparently okay for those who do have those powers to ask people and corporations to donate to their cause? I suppose Justice Roberts doesn't feel it's important for politicians to have integrity or impartiality since they can ask anyone for money.
       Now I applaud the Court's decision to allow Florida's prohibition to continue, but I have to ask, how come we don't demand the same of politicians, who do have the power and the influence over war and finances? Why do we hold them to such a low threshold when they hold sway over life and death of our military and the financial well being of all citizens? It seems to me we should require anyone who wants a position of such magnitude to be above reproach and when they have to go begging for funding, they leave themselves open to the need to make payback promises, real or imagined.
       The time and effort spent on fundraising by politicians has become overwhelming. As I've asked before, 'Why is it that money is equal to a voice?' Large chunks of money can and do drown out other less well healed voices even though those drowned voices may be the voices we most need.