"Odd that there are only investigations into conservative groups breaking campaign finance laws. Sort of like the IRS only vetting conservative groups tax-exempt status."

Quoting mccullough the commenter in our conversation last night about the partisan-seeming judge in the Wisconsin John Doe investigation, Instapundit says: "The bureaucracy is a one-party state."

"If Congress tried to limit spending by newspapers, the courts would reject such meddling as a blatant violation of the First Amendment."

"Likewise if Congress tried to accomplish its goal indirectly by limiting the amount of money newspapers receive from advertisers," Jacob Sullum begins his explanation of the campaign finance case that was argued in the Supreme Court yesterday.

The Supreme Court oral argument today in the federal campaign finance law limiting total contributions an individual may make to various candidates.

Adam Liptak thinks the Court is divided "along familiar ideological lines" and "prepared to strike down" the law:

“By having these limits, you are promoting democratic participation,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. “Then the little people will count some.”

Justice Antonin Scalia responded, sarcastically, that he assumed “a law that only prohibits the speech of 2 percent of the country is O.K.”

Scalia responded "sarcastically." Why an adverb for Scalia's statement and not for Ginsburg's? It seems biased not to spread the adverbs around on both sides of the "familiar ideological line." Journalism should be judged by the fairness of the distribution of adverbs.

Help Adam Liptak give adverbial equality to Justice Ginsburg.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, sententiously.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, superciliously.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, condescendingly.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, grandiosely.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, patronizingly.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, maternally.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, diminuitively.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, pretentiously.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, gloriously.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, divaishly.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, furtively.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, wistfully.
pollcode.com free polls

UPDATE: Adam Liptak emails to say: "I meant to signal that he was saying the opposite of what he meant. The quoted words standing alone would mislead the casual reader. It also seemed to me to capture his tone." I know that was the function of the adverb, but it seems to me that the NYT is continually nudging us to view Scalia as mean/nasty... and I was having a little fun with it.

"It would be terrible for our democracy … if one politician could directly solicit $3.6 million from a single donor."

"That is 70 times the median income for an American family. It would mean a tiny, tiny group of donors would wield unprecedented power and influence," says an election law expert from a liberal advocacy group, quoted by David Savage in an L.A. Times piece titled "Supreme Court may strike new blow to campaign funding laws/The Supreme Court, in a new campaign funding case, may lift a lid on the total the wealthy can give to all candidates and parties."

In recent [Supreme Court] opinions, [Chief Justice John] Roberts has said the government may not try to "level the playing field" between candidates or prevent well-funded candidates from using their financial advantage to dominate the airwaves. The only justification for limiting contributions, the court has said, is to prevent "corruption or the appearance of corruption."...

"This is a limit on how many candidates you support, not on how much you give them," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney for the Republican National Committee. He cites the case of McCutcheon, an Alabama man who gave a total of $33,000 to various Republican candidates for Congress last year and wanted to give $21,000 more. He was stopped by the legal limit on total contributions to candidates, which now stands at $48,600.

McCutcheon "holds firm convictions on the proper role of government" and "opposes numerous and ill-conceived and overreaching laws," he told the court, and he wants more "federal officeholders who share his beliefs."

"A Texas court has overturned the conviction of former House majority leader Tom DeLay in a money-laundering case...."

Insufficient evidence. 

DeLay was sentenced to three years in prison on a conspiracy charge and five years for money laundering. He remained free while he was appealing his case. For years, DeLay had maintained his innocence and denounced what he called the "criminalization of politics."

In the appellate court's majority opinion, the judges said that "the evidence shows that the defendants were attempting to comply with the election code limitations on corporate contributions."

"Not just the NSA... Political candidates, political parties, Super PACS and dark-money groups are among the most ambitious data miners around."

"They use data to supercharge their fund-raising, to target multimillion-dollar ad buys and to stir passions and fears at election time," writes John Nichols at The Nation.

"The Supreme Court reentered the controversial field of campaign finance Tuesday, agreeing to consider a Republican challenge..."

"... to decades-old limits on the total amount a person can contribute to candidates, political parties and political action committees."

"A lot of politicians use political donations as lifestyle enhancements—getting work done on their homes, taking fancy vacations, etc."

Says Andy Shaw of the Better Government Association, a Chicago-based good-government group.

“At the very least they’re bending the rules of campaign finance and sometimes they violate them blatantly. Unfortunately the IRS and state election boards are stretched too thin to investigate. But if you end up under the microscope of the U.S. Attorney that all changes … Jesse Jackson Jr. is not an outlier here, but he’s the one who got caught. There are a lot of politicians who are probably saying ‘there but for the grace of God go I.’”

Chicago politics... another federal prosecutor persecuting somebody... what angle do you want to take here?

A slice of Wisconsin politics.

I framed this screenshot from the lead article at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel webpage:



Meade sent me that link and highlighted the quote: "A few dozen protesters gathered in the rotunda, and their shouts were at times barely audible inside the Assembly chamber during the address."

Wistful echoes of 2 years ago, when thousands of protesters jammed the Capitol and banged drums and chanted for weeks on end.

Meanwhile, in the sidebar over there:

Feingold calls for legislation to rid election campaigns of corruption

And I call for peace on earth and goodwill toward men.

That second sidebar link — "Man arrested at Capitol had earlier run-in with police" — refers to something that is also in the Scott Walker article: "In one surprise at the Capitol Tuesday, police arrested a 20-year-old Milwaukee man for entering the building with what he claimed were Molotov cocktails in his backpack.... So far, however, no evidence has turned up that Smith knew about Walker's speech or was targeting it specifically."

Random Molotov-cockery, not necessarily Scott-Walker-related.