Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (7198)	9/8/2003 10:59:21 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793790

Just the usual right wing hack job. Why am I not surprised? We have entered a new era on columnists. It's not enough anymore to hide in a garret and send your copy into the paper. You have to be able to handle yourself with the media. Krugman can't. That gives him short shift in the Big Time.

To: JohnM who wrote (7198)	9/9/2003 1:19:14 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793790

A little "Inside the Supremes." THE SCENE As Justices Listen, Insiders Watch for Clues By ROBIN TONER - [The New York Times] [Sponsored by Starbucks] September 9, 2003 WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - It was one of those rare moments when the three branches of government, the titans of the politico-legal establishment and the most ferocious interest groups of the left and the right converged. The subject before the Supreme Court, of course, was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and whether the new rules for the getting and spending of political money pass constitutional muster. The crowds outside were modest by the standards of other major cases on issues like abortion, although one demonstrator enthusiastically waved a sign declaring, "BCRA Rocks!" But campaign finance legislation is followed most passionately by political professionals, inside-the-beltway types, and there were many of them in the courtroom, raptly listening for hints on how the court might rule. Another election, after all, is fast approaching. Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a member of the audience, said he hoped for a speedy decision, so the parties could know the new rules of the game. The justices betrayed, at times, an almost anthropological curiosity about the business of politics. What is the difference between big donors getting access with lawmakers ? and big donors buying influence? Where is the line between issue advocacy and pure campaign ads aimed at influencing elections? How can you regulate the actions of "Joe Wealthy" or "Joe Rich" as Justice Stephen G. Breyer called him, and create a cleaner system, without harming the First Amendment? At one point, Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether the court should be so "deferential" to Congress because it is so "manifestly self-interested" in the issue. Too much of the legislation, he suggested, was too favorable to incumbents. Representative Martin T. Meehan, the Massachusetts Democrat who is an architect of the bill, listened with some amusement to that concern. "I don't think the system before this could have been any more pro-incumbent," he said during a break, noting that 98 percent of the incumbents who run were routinely re-elected. Moreover, he said with a laugh, "This bill took seven years to pass chiefly because incumbents were against it." All four of the legislation's chief sponsors were in the audience today. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, reflected somewhat wistfully that "it's been a long seven years since we began this" and noted that the goal was considered impossible at the start. Nearby was Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, the man who prided himself on blocking campaign finance legislation for so many years and who quickly challenged its constitutionality when it finally passed. He declared today that he was "optimistic" that he would, in the end, prevail. The lawyers arguing before the justices today underscored the stakes; they included three current or past solicitors general. Kenneth W. Starr, the former solicitor general and Whitewater independent counsel ? and a man anathema to many Democrats ? was among those arguing against the new law. Theodore B. Olson, the current solicitor general, who gained Democrats' enmity while arguing for President Bush in the Florida election recount case, was on the other side. Mr. Olson contributed to the insiders' atmosphere when he inadvertently referred to Mr. Starr as Justice Starr; Mr. Starr was considered a potential nominee to the Supreme Court before he led the Whitewater investigation, which became bitterly partisan. Realizing his gaffe when the room erupted in nervous laughter, Mr. Olson leaned over and said to Mr. Starr, "I guess you'll have to wait." While much of the argument was conducted in arcane legislative language, it came, repeatedly, back to the question of protecting political speech on the one side, and protecting the integrity of the political system on the other. "Is every problem solvable?" Justice Scalia. It was a question that hung in the air. nytimes.com