is at it again. This time, they have placed an injunction against the implementation of an Arizona law designed to combat election corruption via campaign finance legislation. Under the contested law, the state would offer matching funds to publicly-funded candidates who face privately-funded rivals.
“State officials and advocates of public campaign finance systems say the matching funds help combat contributions-for-favors corruption and encourage more people to run for office,” reported Paul Davenport, Associated Press Writer. Implementation of the Arizona law will be delayed — or completely derailed — until this fall when the Supreme Court will revisit the case. You can read the complete AP article here.
I’m no legal beagle; but, what I’m reading in this case suggests that the law Arizonans passed made great sense and led the way in campaign finance reform legislation.
Although the ruling will affect dozens of candidates at many levels in Arizona, it is interesting to note that the Supreme Court injunction favors a privately-funded candidate in the upcoming governor’s election, Buz Mills. Mills describes himself as a “a true Republican conservative.” Is the Supreme Court offering Americans an impartial decision? Was their injunction a way to help Mills? Perhaps not. But perhaps yes.
And speaking of “Yes” you may find it interesting to read about another Supreme Court ruling that will, according to many, weaken Miranda rights. You can read one take on that ruling here:
And some editorials on the subject here:
I will probably, at some point, show some photos of finished knitting projects. However, my knitting doesn’t seem very important in the face of these two Supreme Court decisions. If you agree, might not hurt to pick up a phone and give your Congressmen a jingle to let them know what you think about what the Supreme Court is up to. I don’t know what good it would do; but, I don’t think it would do any harm. If you need some phone numbers, you can find them here.