Wandering Reveries

Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog provides an analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett. It’s a good analysis and summary of the case. I’m still reading the opinion, as well as articles on the ruling, but my first impression is: I’m dismayed that both the majority and minority opinions seem to accept the notion that private funds corrupt candidates (and government in general), whether it’s that subsidies fail to reduce corruption or that Arizona’s system would have succeeded. Perhaps, as a campaign hack, my sensibilities are offended by the idea that my candidate would be corrupted by a contribution (indeed, I’ve worked on campaigns where we have worked to avoid any appearance of corruption - even giving contributions back), but I’ve been reading a lot about campaign finance lately, specifically on the federal level and from what I have seen thus far, there is not much evidence for corruption as a rule with regard to private funding of campaigns. Does it occasionally occur? Sure; we can find the stories about it. We can also find examples where public financing has not stopped actual corruption. As such, I don’t believe that corruption should be accepted as a rule when it comes to private contributions. The other claim is that public financing increases competition. Fortunately, Arizona provides all of the information online about the participants in public financing, which then can be compared to election results and campaign finance reports. I am going to sit down today (I have some free time) and go through this information and work on a post. Overall, I have no ideological stake in this discussion - I want to keep an open mind about the free speech and constitutional issues at stake - but I am skeptical of the effectiveness of public financing of campaigns.

The hatred for Abraham Lincoln seems to blind some people the actual facts of history. For example, evilteabagger writes the following:

The Civil War was unconstitutional, he suspended habeas corpus without Congressional approval, he incarcerated and deported members of Congress and the Supreme Court that question the legitimacy of his presidential power among many other atrocities.

Lincoln never incarcerated or deported any member of Congress or member of the Supreme Court. I have addressed this bunk before, but let me address it again, because our understanding of history is incredibly important, and it’s important to dispel myths.

The myth of Lincoln arresting sitting Congressmen is based on the arrest of Clement Vallandigham, who was not a member of Congress at the time of his arrest and deportation. Vallandigham - who was defeated for re-election in 1862 - was arrested in 1863 - well after he had completed his term - by General Burnside under his issued order - General Order #38. Vallandigham was then tried by a military tribunal and convicted. A federal court upheld the conviction. He was sentenced to 2 years confinement in a military prison. This sentence was changed by Lincoln, who then had Vallandigham taken to Tennessee; he later returned to Ohio after the war. (Source).

The false belief that Lincoln incarcerated and deported a Supreme Court Justice is based on the disputed arrest warrant for Chief Justice Robert B. Taney (Source). Purportedly, Lincoln issued a warrant, but it was never executed, so Taney was never arrested, nor was he ever incarcerated or deported. Even such a virulent opponent of Lincoln as Thomas DiLorenzo notes that the warrant was never executed.

Lincoln committed enough unconstitutional and illegal acts without resorting to distorting the facts to make some acts seem worse.

(Source: antigovernmentextremist)

The Economist has this short article about Hamilton today on their blog: Democracy in America. Personally, in the battle between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, I come down on the side of Hamilton.