When will the US take the money out of elections?
@thegreatdebater (7316)
United States
June 13, 2009 4:57pm CST
Last week the US supreme court voted 5 - 4 that judges SHOULD recuse themselves from cases where any party involved donated HUGE sums of money for their election. There are alot of things wrong with this, on many levels. This was a party line vote, which should frieghten even conservatives who feel that donating money to politicans is a part of the fist amendment. The excuse that the conservatives on the bench made was that they were afraid that this would bring about "a flood of recusal motions". If our founding fathers used this logic we would still be ruled by a King. One of the other problems here is what is a "huge" sum of money? This case was about an energy company that spent $3 million dollars to change the make-up of the court. And, it worked. Do think that it is a good idea to continue the way we elect all politicans, and judges? Do you think that money does influence their decision?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
15 Jun 09
The short answer, the money will be taken out of elections when the people spending that money SAY to take the money out of elections. Our politicians are bought and paid for. Judges that are elected rather than appointed may be bought and paid for as well. It's sad, but that's the way it works these days and things like campaign finance reform aren't going to change that.
2 people like this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
15 Jun 09
I hate to agree with you Taskr, but you are correct. The only way this is going to change is if the electorate makes them change it, and having the people that bennifit from the corruption fix the problem is only creating more problems.
@heathcliff (1415)
• United States
14 Jun 09
You guys are on the right track. 5-4, geesh, just shows you how hard it is to effect change in election financing and ethics. And that was just recusing elected judges with a KNOWN connection to someone in the case, not addressing the whole system.
Of course, even appointed judges can be "controlled" through the person or body that appoints them so open elections are often the best way. We just need 100% accountability on where their donations come from and options for how to try cases in which they might have a vested interest.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
14 Jun 09
I think it's time the whole concept of electing judges is rethought. You just KNOW there are going to be some judges in some cases who are literally bought and paid for! right now there's a scandal in my area of Pa. where two judges have been found to have been running a scam where they were putting juvenile offenders in a "prison camp" type of place for money. Since conservatives like Rush Limbaugh claim that money is speech when it comes to campaign financing I doubt the US will ever take the money out of elections. Justice Roberts ruled against judges recusing themselves and he'll be around for a long, LONG time to come.
Annie
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
14 Jun 09
I have heard of that case you are talking about, and it is amazing how much power these judges have. There are many states that are looking at privitized jails instead of state run. So corruption like you are talking about will become more common, and in many parts of this country judges and law enforcement have the power to stop any investigations into their actions.
I still have never had one republican show where it states in any US document that donated money to a political candidate is protected as free speech. I am no fan of John Roberts, he is one of the most conservative judges in the country, and his voting record reflects his bias.
1 person likes this
