Today the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, gave corporations the same rights as citizens when it comes to the freedom of expression implicit in campaign donations. In other words, legislation limiting corporate donations to politicians and political causes have been overturned.

In terms of the effect this will have on elections, it is a terrible decision. However, Constitutional decisions are not based on fairness or the consequences of those decisions so much as what rights we are given by the Constitution. For years the ACLU has opposed many of the strongest campaign finance laws because they view them as limiting free speech. This is not the ACLU trying to help the rich and powerful. It is, in their eyes, the correct way to interpret the constitution and the civil libertarian view.

I have never decided whether I agree with them or not. It is a gray area. Usually, when faced with a gray area, I tend to prefer the civil libertarian view. Better to err in favor of rights than go too far the other way. So, despite being very much in favor of campaign finance reform and wanting as strict rules as possible, I have also been open to the ACLU arguments.
 more this way»

Barack Obama you're on notice. Just as Stephen Colbert does, if you pull this again, I swear, you will be dead to me.

I just had a "fundraising representative" from Integral Resources, Inc. call me for a donation.

First off, the woman on the phone hardly spoke English. Now, for a woman who speaks 4 languages fluently, I don't mind someone with a bit of an accent. I am all for a multilingual United States.

Yet, if this company is basically profiling me with a Spanish-speaking phone operator just based on my last name, they need to be called wankers as well.

I hate that. I hate it so much that I actually have NOT bought from companies that used Spanish-speaking telemarketers just out of principle. Racial or ethnic profiling by telemarketers is not a stroke of demographic genius --it is a bigoted act.

Yet, what jumped the shark was not the fact I could barely understand what this woman was saying. No. What killed me was the scripted pitch :

He's the candidate who need the most help ... you know, due to his background ... He needs $130,000 a day to run his campaign ... The top level is $2300 but today I am asking you only to donate $200.

Oh joy. A discount.

And this days after David Geffen hosted a $1.3 million fundraising party for Obama and showed how gaga he is over the junior Senator of Illinois by dissing the junior Senator of New York.
 more this way»

Two Bush-appointed nominees for full-term ambassadorships come up before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this afternoon. One of them is thoroughly qualified for the position he's been nominated for. The other? Well, not so much.

The first one is "Curtis S. Chin, of New York, to be United States Director of the Asian Development Bank, with the rank of Ambassador." Chin's got a rock-solid resume with lots of international finance and govermental experience. He's even held posts in the administrations of both Bushes. So he's probably a pretty good get for the gig.

But the other one, though: "Sam Fox, of Missouri, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Belgium." Argh. That is a whole kettle of fish of a different color.

Fox has no foreign policy background and no experience working in the government. He admits this himself, along with the fact that he can’t speak Dutch or French proficiently either. What he knows about Belgium you could probably fit into one Wikipedia entry, and it's likely to be just about as accurate too.

What Sam Fox has, though, is a lot of money. A whole lot of money. And he knows how to get his hands on even more money than that. He's taken blatant advantage of every possible dodge and legal loophole in the campaign finance laws to funnel soft money to, through, and around the Bush/GOP campaigns for many years. And you can bet they're mighty happy about that.
 more this way»