I completed my walk around the town of Mendocino today with a heavy heart and mind thinking about the decision of the Supreme Court announced yesterday to loosen the reins even more on the I-can-have-it all impulses and sense of entitlement of America's unimaginably wealthy citizens, so they can spend as much of their discretionary wealth as they want to spend on buying political advantage. I tried to lose myself in the beauty of this part of my amazing country. It almost worked… but not enough to keep down the rant that I wrote when I got back to my word processor.

Remember the photographs a couple of days ago of the Cabrillo Light Station.  It's a few miles up the coast from the town of Mendocino.  It's actually in the picture above on that little spit of land jutting out into the Pacific Ocean. The magic of a 300 mm photographic lens brought it close enough to actually see in the picture below.

MONEY TALKS... 

The news that the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, has moved again to increase the buying power of the Koch Brothers and other super rich Americans by removing existing limits on overall federal campaign donations.  The four liberal Justices were on the losing end of the decision carried by the five conservative justices  who insist that their interpretation of First Amendment rights trumps efforts by government to limit the extent to which wealthy donors or special-interest groups can turn their money into political speech. 

Here’s what Chief Justice Roberts said about the decision: “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. We have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.”  I have no idea if Roberts has ever had much association with poor people, but he is a bright enough individual to understand intuitively that being poor limits and restricts and inhibits participation in the political system?  Teaching in a public high school in the very poorest section of a city might give him perspective that he seems to lack.  Do he and the other justices who joined him in the decision not understand that money buys the attention and support of elected officials for projects favored by the wealthy citizens who stuff money into campaign coffers of people running for public office?  Roberts said leveling the playing field is not an acceptable interest for the government; nor  according to Robert is ‘the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties” an acceptable interest of government.  Money and power and affluence and more money can corrupt and transform even a politician who once knew and felt the power that poverty and deprivation have to demean and paralyze the human spirit. San Diego’s ex-mayor Bob Filner is a clear example of a politician who couldn’t seem to stop before he disgraced himself, his family, his city and the Democratic Party.  Taking away the limits to money and the power of money in politics invites corruption and ultimately disgrace. 

Justice Stephen Breyer read his dissent from the bench to emphasize the disagreement between the five conservative justices and the three others who joined him in the dissent. He said, “If Citizens United opened a door, today’s decision, we fear, will open a floodgate.”  He added that the ruling “overturns key precedent, creates serious loopholes in the law and undermines, perhaps devastates, what remains of campaign finance reform.”  

Justice Clarence Thomas said he and his other conservative justices should have gone even further to strike down all contribution limits imposed by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat then-Senator Russell Feingold.  Polls consistently show that the majority of voters object to weighing the balance of government in favor of the wealthiest Americans.  Someone said to me yesterday that I should be happy with the decision because democrats will be able to tap into the coffers of the wealthy in their party.  Trying not to be condescending as teachers sometimes are, I told her that she was missing the point. I identify with the Democratic party because of ethics and principles consistently expressed in party platform statements, not because of any personal advantage that party membership might give to me.  I am not surprised that Republicans are cheering the ruling on philosophical grounds and Democrats are generally criticizing it. New York Senator Charles Schumer said, “This is not a decision that advantages one party over the other.  It advantages wealthy people over everybody else.”  

 You pays your money and you takes our choice. 

Even more photographic magic, this time with my iPhone, made these panoramic pictures.

The beach at Jug Handle State Reserve just south of Fort Bragg.