JESUS HAD THE RIGHT IDEA ABOUT THE MONEY CHANGERS IN THE TEMPLE-- HOW ABOUT THE ONES IN THE CAPITOL?

You know the old saying that "money is the root of all evil." It's so true and more so in politics than anything else. If you were listing to All Things Considered on NPR yesterday (at around 5:20 pm) you heard me trying to make the point when the reporter asked me about why so many Democrats changed their votes from "no" on retroactive immunity to "yes" on retroactive immunity. We've been writing about how the Republican wing of the Democratic Party sold out the Constitution and sold out American values for a bunch of filthy lucre.

Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel, each of whom has been the recipient of massive bribes from the telecom companies, euphemistically called "campaign contributions," lead 94 Democrats-- many of them corrupt Blue Dogs-- across the aisle to vote with the Republicans for retroactive immunity for criminal telecom executives who illegally spied on American citizens. 83 of them were given substantial amounts of money which people might logically assume influenced their votes. Emanuel himself, the telecoms' favorite Democrat, was given nearly $50,000. All their fears after losing Tom DeLay have been assuaged by their new best friend Rahm. And Steny.

Yeah, yeah... you've heard it all before. But it's weighed especially hard on my mind because yesterday the corporate end of the Supreme Court-- Saclia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy-- in a narrow and tragic ruling "struck down a law meant to level the financial playing field when rich candidates pay for their own political campaigns." Although the pernicious influence of hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes has essentially left democracy shattered in this country the 5 reactionaries on the Supreme Court remain firmly opposed to any kind of campaign finance regulation.

The case was brought by Jack Davis, a Democrat who twice ran for the House of Representatives from western New York, spending or lending himself millions of dollars of his own money. He lost both times.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the asymmetry imposed by the law was unacceptable. “We have never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different contribution limits for candidates who are competing against each other,” Justice Alito wrote.
The law allows opponents of candidates for the House who spend more than $350,000 of their own money to receive triple the usual amounts-- $6,900 rather than $2,300-- from individual contributors when a complex statutory formula is met. The law also waives limits on expenditures from political parties.

The law was a response to Supreme Court rulings that forbid limits on the amount that candidates can spend on their own behalf. But Justice Alito wrote that the legislative response was unconstitutional because it “imposes an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises” free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Rich candidates, Justice Alito said, must “choose between the First Amendment right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fund-raising limitations.”

In the case, Davis v. Federal Election Commission, No. 07-320, Mr. Davis’s lawyer argued that the law had an ulterior motive, that of protecting incumbents against rich challengers. The court did not address that point, but the majority did express skepticism about allowing Congress to decide how to level the political landscape.

“Different candidates have different strengths,” Justice Alito wrote. “Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities; others have the benefit of a well-known family name.”

Blue America has endorsed Jon Powers, a progressive Iraq War vet, in the race against Davis, who owns as much of $35 million dollars in Big Oil investments. Jon needs our help more than ever. But the real benefactors of today's rulings are the dozens of third and fourth tier Republican congressional candidates who were recruited by the cash-strapped NRCC for one reason and one reason only: they are self-funding millionaires. (By the way the DCCC isn't exactly guilt free in this instance either, just not as guilty.)

You may recall that last November we referenced a NY Times story about how the GOP was looking for otherwise unqualified millionaires to run in open congressional districts where first tier candidates had already passed, or where there were no first tier candidates. From the bottom of the barrel-- in all ways except personal wealth-- the Republicans have assembled a revolting menagerie:

Sandy Treadwell (NY-20 vs. Blue Dog Kirsten Gillibrand)
Susan Bitter-Smith and Dave Schweikert (AZ-05 vs. extremely conservative Harry Mitchell)
Mike Erickson (OR-05 vs. Kurt Schrader)
Keith Fimian (VA-11 vs. reactionary Gerry Connelly)
Chris Gorman (LA-04 vs. Paul Carmouche)
Steve Greenberg (IL-08 vs. one of the very worst Blue Dogs Melissa Bean)
Richard Hanna (NY-24 vs. Mike Arcuri)
rubber stamp Rep. Robin Hayes (NC-08 vs. Larry Kissell)
Marty Ozinga (IL-11 vs. Debbie Halvorson)
Luke Puckett (IN-02 vs. ultra reactionary Blue Dog Rep. Joe Donnelly)
Tom Rooney and Hal Valeche (FL-16 vs. Rep. Tim Mahoney, also a millionaire and formerly a Republican)
Mike Sodrel (IN-09 vs. ultra-reactionary Rep. Baron Hill)

From what I can tell, the only Democrats worth saving in this lot are Larry Kissell and Mike Arcuri, although I don't know anything about Kurt Schrader. Marc Ash wrote a very perceptive opinion piece at Truthout yesterday and, although I urge you to read all of it, I'll quote a few lines:

For those who thought Tom Delay's departure would really change anything in Congress, this past week was a strong cup of coffee. On Capitol Hill, politics and greed still trump the good of the nation, still trump the Constitution, still trump all.

...It's often said that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. False. The vast majority of honest public servants in Congress are Democrats. However, it would not be safe to say that the majority of Democrats are honest public servants. About half of the Democrats and a small handful of Republicans take seriously their sworn oaths. The rest would be arrested in any other walk of life.

There can be no democracy when everything is for sale to the highest bidder. And it certainly is now. I would say the something that sounds as wonky and in the weeds as "campaign finance reform" is more important than ending the war in Iraq and more important than universal health care. I think it's more important than anything threatening our country politically or economically. It is truly the root of all evil.