OCR Text |
Show Page lib Pragmatic Dogmatics V e'rsus V aleo, Part I Buckley by Kent Shearer At the end of January, the United States. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in the case entitled Buckley v. Valeo. Briefly, the Court held that Congress cannot, as it had attempted, limit the expenditures on his own behalf of a federal political candidate, those of his committee, or those of an individual or group in the independent expression of his or its evaluations of candidates or subject matter. The Court, however, also held that Congress contributions to can, as it has, limit third-part- y candidates and committees, and require those entities to disclose political receipts and expenditures. The contribution limitation, left in force, is $1,000 per candidate and $25,000 overall. These rulings hinged upon the Courts construction of the free speech and free assembly guarantees of the Constitution. Those provisions, it held, are directly inhibited if money cannot be spent freely for the direct expression of ones or a groups views. They are not violated if one is limited in what one I Live ivs pe a tmi. THAT 15 may give to others to express the recipients' convictions. In a metaphysical sense in the manner of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. .th eBuckley opinion may be good law. In judicial strategem, it gaye something both to the opponents and the. supporters of the statutes it truncated; each side could proclaim a great victory. To a practical politician, however, Buckley is an utter horror. Item. It clearly favors selfish wealth over unselfish wealth. Let us suppose (what a supposition ) that I am rich, have no particular desire to hold federal office, but am most interested in the candidacy of an attractive, articulate, but modestly fixed associate, Joe Jones, whose conclusions largely parrallel mine. I ask Joe to run for Congress. Joe responds, Kent, Id love to. But youre the one with the money. You can contribute only $1,000 to me. You are able to spend $100,000, or whatever, on yourself. You be the candidate, pay me an adequate salary as your manager, and -- when you become a Congressman Ill be in line to head your staff. moe A W 10AU 15 mve A FORT Item. The decision fosters electoral anarchy. Undeterred, I tell Joe, But I can spend as much as I want, I just cant contribute it. Tell me what you'd like done, and Ill spend the money for it. Joe, more scrupulous that many will be, says, That doesn 't work. Anything you spend must be independent and beyond my knowledge. Otherwise we may both find ourselves in jail. And the money you spend may be out of phase with my plans. You are the guy to run. Then well be certain to have an intelligent, coordinated effort. So, the Buckley edict may result in a Congress composed of the 535 richest persons in our nation. I doubt either the Republic or the Supreme Court actually enodorses the prospect. Former Supreme Court Justices who had practical political experienc- e- e.g. William Howard Taft, Charles Evans Hughes, and would have construed the Hugo Black-sur- ely Constitution to avoid that kind of dread eventuality. There are no Tafts, no Hughes, no Blacks on the present panel. Buckley v. Valeo is proof enough. that 0 mve a imei. 'iil OH THAT 15 THT $6 I FR0M AM SAFE S3 W. tui OH d d (t d d d d d r (i A d (i d d included in these calculations although they usually come out of any damages awarded. In any negligence case the amount of to their to reduce of doctors efforts The recent responsibility damages awarded may be high if the plaintiff proves the injury patients by limiting recoveries in malpractice claims have been is great and the anticipated loss are substantial. And yet doctors claim they are somehow aggrieved by this an apparent failure. This lack of success is not due to any medical same system which applies to negligent automobile system-t- he opposition to the doctors position (blind respect for the media critical analysis by drivers, building contractors, or homeowners. The rising costs profession appears to have muted any is traditional to it due the of malpractice insurance are attributed by doctors to failures in or public officials), but rather unless action to take of the legal system-t- o excessive attorneys fees and irresponsible reluctance any any government body faced with an actual crisis. However, while doctors may not be juries. It is not suggested by doctors that the high cost of able to revive all their victims, we can be confident that the malpractice insurance rates could be related to the findings of malpractice insurance issue will not remain dead and buried. the Federation of State Medical Boards that at least 5 percent of the nations doctors are incompetent. The fact that 16,000 Accordingly, a few comments would seem appropriate. of number an American doctors (treating 7.5 million patients annually) are that of course, The problem is, increasing patients are receiving larger and larger awards in lawsuits mentally ill, drug addicts, or ignorant of modem medical usage claiming negligence by doctors. To prove negligence in is somehow overlooked by doctors as a causal factor in American courts, the plaintiff must show that the defendant increasing insurance rates. And do doctors propose the reform of professional failed to act as a reasonable person would have acted in the defendant the and that thereby disciplinary bodies or the strengthening of licensing requiresame or similar circumstances caused harm to the plaintiff. Accordingly, in a medical ments to combat rising insurance costs? No. Of more malpractice suit the patient must prove the doctor failed to importance to doctors is the protection of their $46,000 average follow the customary and usual procedures of the profession (as annual incomes. The American Medical Association (you d established by testimony of other doctors). A doctor need not remember this group;they lobby against national but advanced most merely health programs as unwarranted government intrusions into techniques, necessarily employ the medical of standards with the medical practice) proposes legislation to limit the amount of average act in accordance practice. If negligence is proven, damages are awarded to damage awards or to subsidize malpractice insurance funds. compensate the plaintiff for past and anticipated medical bills, Welfare for the rich. Income to supplement medicaid kickbacks. lost earnings, and pain and suffering. Attorneys fees are not $$$$$$$. by T. Octopus civic-minde- |