There is no abridging the 1st amendment if you do not prevent any spending. If you do help individuals who have less money meet a minimum threshold, you are not abridging anyone’s right to speak freely at all. A

Determining what the minimum threshold is, is a trick, but it’s one solvable by math. simply look for the level of spending in the region of the election in historical elections where spending values do not strongly correlate with results. That’s the level to which public funding should allow viable.. again, a threshold set by popular support, not money.. candidates to run effectively. After that candidates can spend whatever they want on the assumption that it is only a marginal advantage to do so.

And no one was told they “couldn’t” do anything.

I see only the twenty dollar amount in the 7th Amdt — then a *LARGE* amount of money in 1789 — now blown away by statist inflation schemes.

Sorry — anybody see the *NO* and *ABRIDGING* in the 1st Amdt ???

Certainly NOT the party hack Supremes — appointed by party hack Prezs and confirmed by the gerrymander party hack U.S.A. Senate.

What part of the constitution says it is OK for ALL taxpayers to pay for media access for some candidates who they regard as totally EVIL and corrupt — i.e. pro-McCain taxpayers paying for Obama TV attack ads on McCain — and vice versa ???

– or will the New Age control freaks prohibit TV attack ads next — so that only Barney the Dinosaur ads are seen — I love my opponent and hope that he/she is elected (and I know in my heart of hearts that my opponent loves me and hopes that I am elected) ???

—- i.e. New Age MINDLESS IDIOCY — part of the growing INSANITY in U.S.A. *politics* — too much chemical pollution in the rotted air, water and land for too many decades — totally rotting the brains of younger folks especially ???

spending above and beyond that may help, but ultimately, spending doesn’t win elections, we have plenty of evidence of that, as long as candidates have “adequate” access to media.

a public financing of campaigns to that minimum threshold could, perhaps, ignore additional spending as relatively moot.

I am often called for advice on how to set up public financing systems on the state and local level, and the particular concern is how to deal with one-sided spending by independent groups. Until now, the cases (with one exception, the Day v. Holohan case from the eighth circuit) suggested that giving special benefits only to candidates who face spending against them would be constitutional. This, I have argued is an effective way of dealing with one-sided spending. But today’s opinion (maj. 13) endorses Day and calls all such provisions in public financing systems into question.

See Election Law Blog.

Sorry — it is the New Age statist control freaks who are totally insane EVIL — and are so EVIL that they can NOT detect their own total insanity — think Hitler and Stalin for recent top statist monster examples in world history.

Both Hitler and Stalin brainwashed lots of totally insane folks into doing their EVIL statist stuff — Hitler youth, young communists, etc. — with lots of them killing each other off in World War II.

Botton line — New Age campaign finance control freaks = a new version of TOTALLY INSANE monsters from political Hell.

Democracy NOW — regardless of totally insane statists

P.R. for legislative body elections — with perhaps the leftwing and rightwing control freaks bankrupting each other in campaign donations — but good for the economy (TV stations, attack ad makers, etc.) ?

A.V. for nonpartisan executive/judicial offices.

Statist control freaks in the EVIL British regime in 1775-1783 would loved to have known who was financing the American Revolution.

The New Age MONSTERS are even more corrupt and EVIL than any of the old EVIL British monsters — using their hate and jealousy for anybody having above average assets and/or income as being Enemies of the People.

See the results of such hate and EVIL — i.e. the millions killed in World War I and World War II and the various fascist and communist purges.

Sorry – taking a bribe for voting a certain way is still a very major felony.

Of course, deadly serious EVIL New Age statists love to pander — saying that somebody else will be paying for government leftwing / rightwing spending schemes.

Meanwhile 1929-2007 Fed / State / Local govt deficits of $12.3 TRILLION (due to many govt spending schemes) — adding to the collapse of the U.S.A.

having clean election funds as at least a voluntary option allows for SPEECH to be decoupled from FUND RAISING, which is important if you represent issues important to people without much money.

Otherwise, the speech of a campaign is entirely set by those with money, and thus is debated in the interests of those with money.

Which makes their speech “freer” than the rest of us.

I guess you wouldn’t oppose vote buying either, since it’s just free speech, it’s just like saying “hey buddy, you should vote for citizenship for rabbits”, except you’re saying “hey buddy, I think it’s worth $1 million dollars to me for us to be able to give citizenship rights to rabbits”.

It’s rather humourous to watch a plutocrat call “new agers” evil though.

“If §319(a)’s elevated contribution limits applied across the board to all candidates, Davis would have no constitutional basis for challenging them.”

The part of the decision overturning the disclosure requirements of §319(b) was based on the first part of the decision – that is, if the government wasn’t able to increase limits of contributions to opposing candidates, it had no reason to know how much a candidate was willing to expend on his own election.