Those pushing for public financing of all political campaigns were dealt a blow by the Supreme Court on Monday as the majority decided campaign financing restrictions in Vermont were unconstitutional. (Is that the US constitution they are referring to?) The majority, consisting of Bryer, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia (what a crew) ruled Vermont limits on campaign spending and donations violated free speech and claimed the law causes undue burden for candidates to raise the funds necessary to challenge an incumbent. In a separate response, Scalia and Thomas wrote of their opposition to all campaign financing restrictions advocating elimination of all limits. Why am I not surprised?Souter and Ginsburg dissented with Stevens who wrote the decision arguing for the necessity of restrictions while stating the limits did not violate speech. Stevens reasoned further writing “The findings by the Vermont legislature on the pernicious effect of the nonstop pursuit of money are significant.”
A more complete account of the ruling can be found on the website of the New York Times.

Meg at WakeUpAm Podcast Join us for news and commentary you won’t find on the mainstream media.