Support independent, student-run journalism.

Your support helps give staff members from all backgrounds the opportunity to conduct meaningful reporting on important issues at Stanford. All contributions are tax-deductible.

Robes to riches: Money and judicial elections

This case requires that they balance their own notions of judicial integrity and impartiality against the on-the-ground reality of the judicial elections, which they have never experienced. How they evaluate the compelling interest at stake in Florida’s law may do more than tell us about the Court’s vision of the First Amendment; the opinion might also reveal something about the Court’s vision of itself, and about the judicial role in an increasingly political world.

Limit government, not speech

In giving government the power to license and regulate to protect our citizens and push for social equality, we have also given special interests strong incentives to shape public policy. In placing restrictions (however well-intentioned) on voluntary associations and exchanges, we have given the most powerful and affluent in our society the ability to use the legally sanctioned coercion of the state to stamp out their competitors and prey upon the weak. If we want a free society, we need to restrict the power of the state, not the power of private citizens and organizations.


With all of this money being spent, the fundamental principle of American democracy is ignored. The fact of the matter is that more money does correlate to more votes. Between the $2.1 billion raised by Obama and Romney, Obama raised 51.9 percent; he took 51.1 percent of the popular vote. The Center for Responsive Politics finds that the biggest spender in a House race wins nine times out of 10. This should be frightening if you’re a democrat – a proponent of democracy. But it should be more frightening if you’re a Democrat.

Proposed campaign cap would test ASSU constitution

The ASSU Undergraduate Senate will continue debate Tuesday on a much-anticipated campaign finance bill authored by Executives Angelina Cardona ’11 and Kelsei Wharton ’12. The bill, with the potential to reform the entire executive campaign process, would set executive-campaign spending caps and decrease the amount of funds offered through public financing if it can overcome concerns about enforcement and constitutionality.