Internet & Judicial Evolutions

Damn it.

I had to turn on the silly, pain in the temporal budget, Word Verificationer in comments.

OK then.

The SKOTUS ruling that Campaign Finance - how much an individual can spend to get themself elected to Public Office - is protected by the Constitutional Right to Privacy is wrong. If the purpose of private contributions or investments is to gain Public Responsibility then involving an aribtrary indicator
of right, in the case of the USA, wealth, to be used in place of empirical observation, in all cases accomplished using a strict version of the scientific method, private contributions must be maintained at the most raw and honest dissemination of a candidate's platform or agenda.

This applies to both contributors who wish to influence the leaders that get elected as well as to the leaders themselves. When one takes one's Private life Public, one must axiomatically give up one's aggreed upon privacy rights. They no longer apply as that one has now stated their wish to be Public. The only thing owed to that Public is the truth of the candidate's activities, plan's and motives. Only then can the individuals of which the Public is comprised decide credibly on the value of each candidate.

The concept applies in a different dynamic to the use of Publicly Traded stock for Corporate use. Corporations are no more Individuals than candidates for Public Office are private individuals. The decision to be one*
supersedes the right to be the other.

Remember, Humans don't decide what is right, we merely determine which rights we will enforce.

Where is a fatal flaw in that logic? I haven't found it yet and see a very low probability that there can be one so I will continue to investigate.

* An individual who chooses to Incorporate their self, for example, is no longer accorded Private status unless by arbitrary - thus irrational - decision; say a value which the decision-maker feels conciliates his guilt by ignoring the truth of the individuals compensatory value for gaining Corporate status. Quite simply: getting something for nothing relevant.


  1. Also, have you looked at Buckley v. Valeo? To me that Supreme Court ruling really put the campaign financing thing over the top and turned us from a democracy into an oligarchy - rule by the wealthy few.

    I guess it's all part of the divine plan though... (a segway to my post for today...)


Post a Comment

Popular Posts