WASHINGTON — The indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) on public corruption charges is the first bribery case involving the use of corporate political spending to support a candidate since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision allowed corporations to do just that.
Justice Anthony Kennedy declared in the 5-4 majority opinion that corporations should be free to spend unlimited sums on independent political activities since “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Those making independent expenditures “may have influence over or access to elected officials,” but that “does not mean those officials are corrupt,” Kennedy wrote.
Is Kennedy walking a fine line with this statement or what? I had to read it 6 times to make sure that I was reading it correctly. What the hell is this guy really saying??
It is not any big secret that for the most part, the candidate that has the most money to push them forward usually is the victor in an election. Does that mean that they are the most qualified? Not at all.
The way I decipher Kennedy’s conflicting statement “may have influence over or access to elected officials,” but that “does not mean those officials are corrupt is; it is acceptable for individuals or corporations to donate as much $$$$$$$$ as they want to candidates running for political offices. Those donations may not have any influence on the decision making of some politician as far as leaning toward their benefactors favor. The politician by accepting these donations, does not constitute any form of corruption. Is this SUPREME COURT JUCTICE kidding? The only possible, logical conclusion to what he said leads a person to believe that he may have been paid off to make that statement.
I will concede that corruption is not the end result in all cases but it is in enough of them that donation limits should be set. There is a saying that was created especially for politicians; no such thing as a free lunch.
How about a politician run on their merits instead of how much money they have. There should be a 1 million dollar spending limit set for everyone running for national political office. They all should be allowed equal time on the networks and should not be allowed to clog up the airwaves for years before an election. The majority of us buy cable TV and are subjected to these obnoxious political commercials years before an election.
In the UK and Ireland do not permit any political campaigning on TV or radio because they fell that the person with the most money for campaigning has a better chance of influencing the public. They are correct.
Why anyone would donate millions of dollars to a politician when he is running for office? There always is some sort of an ulterior motive.
In the Menendez case, take a look at the good doctor’s financial transactions with the government and see if anyone was leaning his way.
If all of the clandestine transactions that were conducted between Menendez and Melgen were on the up and up, why did they go through such extremes to hide their activities?
I think when the feds really start putting the screws on Melgen and tightening the vice around his goolunies, he is going to sing like Mario Lanza and thrown his old friend Menendez under the bus.
I hope Anthony Kennedy doesn’t have any say so involving this case; he may want to promote them both to 9 star generals.
The Goomba Gazette 