Quantcast The Guilfordian
College Media Network

The Guilfordian

Supreme Court makes landmark decision

Victor Lopez

Issue date: 2/5/10 Section: World
  • Print
  • Email
"There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government," Mayer told The New York Times. "It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove."

Other experts agree.

In The New York Times' report, economist Jeff Milyo pointed to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion "that no evidence was marshaled in 100,000 pages of legal briefs to show that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker's vote."

There are those like Dell who look to the Internet to investigate, where anyone can follow who is financially supporting politicians.

"If the Court's decision gets average American people talking about the role of money in politics by going to Votesmart.org or Opensecrets.org, then this ruling has helped more than it's harmed - even if that was not the original design," said Dell.

With tensions rising between the White House and the Supreme Court, the impact of this legislation will be uncertain until the midterm elections.
< prev Page 2 of 2

Article Tools

Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2

Jin from TN

posted 2/05/10 @ 4:00 PM EST

The Supreme Court's decision, in my opinion, is treasonous. It silences the people's voice in elections, as we will never have as much money as corporations do to support or refute candidates. (Continued…)

Victor Lopez

posted 2/08/10 @ 2:57 AM EST

@Jin, couldn't say it any better myself.

Post a Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Advertisement

Advertisement