Ron Kind: “I thank my friend, again. Again, coming back to what Justice Souter wrote in his majority opinion Nixon v. Shrink last…”

“I thank my friend, again. Again, coming back to what Justice Souter wrote in his majority opinion Nixon v. Shrink last month, writing for the majority perhaps he said it best, that countering the perception that politicians are being bought is a proper justification for regulating donations. Directly quoting from his opinion, he said, ``Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune would jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic government.'' That, I think, basically summarizes the crux of what the Supreme Court was getting at saying: Congress, hey, you have the ability under the Constitution to limit contributions. And after this recent Supreme Court decision, the chief obstacle to achieving a less corrupt campaign finance system is not the U.S. Constitution but the people hiding behind it and using that Constitution as an excuse for inaction. And that, I think, is our chief obstacle that we face today. A willing Congress can now take action to solve the problem of big money and the influence of money in our political process. The political will, not the constitutional authority, is really the only missing ingredient that we have here today. And I feel in my analysis of the Supreme Court decision, and a lot of constitutional experts who looked at it as well, basically view this recent decision as giving us the green light for the ban on soft money contributions.”