Investing in a candidate

Wow, last week opened a stunning chapter in the saga of campaign finance reform, didn't it? What happened is pretty amazing, but in case you missed it, have no fear, The Chronicle has it covered.

Last week, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that will greatly change how this and all future political campaigns are financed. Voting five to four, the court declared that bribery is legal. Ruling in Billet v. United States-where Congressman Jimmy Bob Billet, (D-Fla) had been found guilty of taking a bribe-the Court declared that bribery is merely the financial expression of political speech and, therefore, protected by the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia reaffirmed the Court's holding that "campaign contributions are free speech and they cannot and should not be limited in accordance with the First Amendment." However, in a bold move to expand freedom of speech, the court ruled that any restriction on the use of money to influence government officials is unconstitutional.

Scalia continued, "Since the only difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe is the fact that one is disclosed and the other is not, the offering and accepting of undisclosed money for specific government action is also legal, since the choice to disclose who gave you an enormous sum of money is also a matter of free speech. Private speech and public speech deserve equal protection under the law."

Politicians everywhere hailed the court's decision as wise and long overdue. However, Senator John McCain, a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform, observed, "This is not exactly what we had in mind."

However, the Court's decision did not stop with campaign finance reform. The majority declared that when a bribe is accepted, a contractual agreement has been formed. Contracts are protected by the Constitution, the court argued. Moreover, slavery is a form of a contract since ownership of one person by another is but the expression of a contractual agreement between two parties. The court ruled that the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, went too far. The majority noted, "Forced slavery is clearly unconstitutional because one party is forced into a contract, and thus the contract is not valid. However, when one party freely sells him or her self to another then the contract has been freely joined and it is protected by the Constitution."

George W. Bush immediately declared that he had formed a corporation, W. Inc., which owns 100 percent of George W. Bush, a subsidiary. Major stockholders of W., Inc. include the NRA, major oil companies, General Motors, Bible publishers and the Confederate flagmakers association. Bush is the CEO. Asked why he retained 10 percent of the stock for mutual fund holders, Bush declared, "I am a uniter, not a divider. This way everyone can own a piece of George W. Bush. Yes, I am a slave, but I am slave to the American people."

Vice President Al Gore appeared to be caught off guard by the Court's ruling. Gore's attempt to straddle the fence and declare himself an indentured servant rather than an outright slave seems to have backfired. "Once again the vice president's attempt to have it both ways is in evidence," commented ethicist William Bennett. "We all know that Jesus Christ, the only one who bridged the Judeo-Christian gap, was a capitalist, which is why he banished the money lenders from the Temple. Incorporating and selling oneself is within the framework of Western values. Liberals like Gore just don't get it," Bennett added.

Later in the week Gore declared that he would form a holding company that would have total control of Albert Gore, but stockholders could only hold title to the stock for seven years before having to sell it. Internet companies expressed an initial interest in Gore, Inc., which is expected to trade on the NASDAQ.