If ever rules should prove to difficult to manage, they should be done away with entirely:

>Thomas recognized that the likelihood of the rule of law, of principled government action, is related inversely to the number of criteria the court concocts for determining what political contribution limits are just right. What qualifies judges for this judgment, or how the First Amendment permits it, is unclear. So Thomas sensibly advocated overturning Buckley, allowing people to give, and candidates to spend, what they like, and allowing voters to sort things out. What a concept.

Justice Thomas ought to consult the previous post on interpreting the Constitution. Sometimes the 10 simple rules are not so simple. But the dumb thing about this is the suggestion that the complexity of the situation warrants (in virtue of its complexity) the simple solution of dumping the whole idea of regulating campaign finance altogether. Perhaps–and maybe I’m a communist radical–it warrants a more sensible set of rules, the kind of rules (or guidelines for rules) one would hope an independent body such as the Supreme Court of the United States might be able to concoct, as if it were their job.

One thought on “Concision”

  1. what Will has failed to include is that the reason so many campaign finance reforms fall short of their task is that, when proposed as legislation, as in the case of McCain-Feingold (which he does cite, but accurate representation, as usual, evades his scribbkles) the teeth of thee sorts of bills are yanked out during the bills travels through various mark-up committees, subcommittees, and the like. it is no fault of the reformer that those he and she seek to reform sit in judgement of the manner of their own correction. when faced with the ostensibly dire consequences of their own unscrupulous acts, they alter the bill in such a way that it avoids any real affects and somehow reflects the blame for said ineffectiveness upon those who have proposed the bill, not those who have altered it beyond its true intent. but will blantantly avoids this implication of those most responisble for the shoddy state of reform, focusing his bile instead on those who actively participate in the process he can only pay lip service to.

Comments are closed.