“I’m the Patron Saint of Irony, and I approved this message”

Incumbency-Protection — uh, I mean “Campaign Finance Reform” is before the Supreme Court again:

Members of the U.S. Supreme Court signaled a willingness to give interest groups more power to air advertisements in the weeks before an election, an approach other justices suggested would gut a vital part of a 2002 federal campaign finance law.

The court today heard arguments on a law that says interest groups can use only regulated money, subject to contribution limits and disclosure rules, to run ads that mention federal candidates in the two months before a general election. The intent was to outlaw so-called sham issue ads run by unregulated organizations to hurt or help candidates. […]

Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. says its radio and television commercials must be exempt from the ban because they were “grassroots lobbying ads” and weren’t directed toward Feingold’s ultimately successful re-election bid. The group, which also opposes euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, pulled its ads after three weeks because of legal concerns.  An appeals court in Washington, voting 2-1, sided with the group […]

As we all know by now, the Court has been thoroughly politicized.  The main question at hand is no longer whether or not a certain measure violates the intent of the Constitution, but “which decision on this would best benefit my team?”.  So to hear political arguments from a body that is in principle supposed to be immune from the winds of pop opinion is nothing new.  The brazenness of it, though, never ceases to amuse:

The group’s lawyer, James Bopp, said the ads were intended to lobby Feingold, not to influence voters. Feingold had supported filibusters to block President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

Souter bristled when Bopp said voters didn’t see the ads as a call to vote against Feingold because the commercials didn’t directly say that the senator supported the filibusters. Bopp argued that “there’s absolutely no evidence that anyone in Wisconsin knew his position on the filibuster.”

“You think they’re dumb?” Souter asked. “Nobody’s paying attention to what the senator is doing?” (emphasis mine)

Leave aside the merit of the specific argument (that potential voters were unaware of Feingold’s position); it’s ridiculous, and also completely irrelevant, the sole reason this defense is being offered is because that’s what the Court now demands, in violation of their positions.  Souter thinks that ads mentioning candidates by name somehow warp our minds, overriding the opinions we already hold, and we need to be shielded from them for our own good.  Yet the opposition thinks people are dumb?