Interpreting the Roberts' Court's decisions.

‘Hardcore History’ host: Justice Roberts told America to accept plutocracy or revolt (Click here to read more)

By Eric W. Dolan
April 7, 2014 14:16 EDT

.

 “Common Sense” and “Hardcore History” host Dan Carlin blasted Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday for his “breathtaking” decision in the McCutcheon v. FEC case, warning it was pushing Americans towards radical action.

.

The court last Wednesday struck down the aggregate limit on federal campaign contributions that had been in place since 1974. Political donors had been limited to giving a total of $123,200 to candidates, national party committees and political action committees during the federal two-year election cycle.
.
But Carlin was far more concerned that Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to believe the very idea of campaign finance reform was wrong. Roberts wrote in his ruling that the government had no legitimate reason to regulate money in politics, besides outlawing a very specific and narrow type of corruption.
.
“No matter how desirable it may seem, it is not an acceptable governmental objective to ‘level the playing field,’ or to ‘level electoral opportunities,’ or to ‘equaliz[e] the financial resources of candidates,’” the chief justice wrote.
.
The government can only enact laws to prevent quid pro quo corruption — in which a candidate accepts money from a donor in return for voting in favor or against a specific piece of legislation — the court said.
.
“This is where the decision is so breathtaking, you can see where this is going to go,” Carlin said Friday on his “Common Sense” podcast. “If this is the rationale that the court is operating under, and don’t kid yourself, because Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the majority on the court but went even farther and basically said, why are we having any of these limits at all? If this is indefensible, all the other stuff is indefensible too. If this is the rationale, and the chief justice says it is — you shouldn’t even try to do this — well, then all this limiting money is wrong. So we’ve opened up the door to this without ever explaining how people who don’t have money are supposed to get a response from government.”