March 28, 2024

Bibles and Billionaires

Sept. 18, 2015

Kim Davis, America’s most famous county clerk, was out of jail and back at work last week, once again sounding like a weiner commercial talking about answering to a higher authority. And abdicating her legal responsibility to issue marriage licenses.

The good people of Rowan County, Ken., must be puzzled by an elected official now running her office, at least in part, based on her version of God’s law. Surprisingly, that version is narrowly focused on same-sex marriage.

This is quite beyond a slippery slope and more akin to a cliff off which some have already fallen. The notion that an elected government official, sworn to uphold and obey the constitution and, in this case, the laws of her state, has decided she need do neither as a matter of religious belief is completely absurd.

Davis claims that because she ended her oath by saying, "So help me God," it means she can only do her job as permitted by God. Never mind the official oath doesn’t include those words or that federal oaths do not contain those words (George Washington added them in a presidential ad lib and it became a tradition). The U.S. Constitution doesn’t mention God at all, and by design.

We don’t expect much of elected officials anymore, but we do expect them to follow the law whether they like it or not. Religious beliefs should never even enter into the business of government. Ever.

Those who now claim the U.S. Supreme Court isn’t the final authority should think again. When it comes to the laws of this land, they are absolutely the ultimate authority until either they change their minds or the Constitution is amended. Live your private life by whatever text or tradition you want but actual laws and courts will determine what happens in the public square.

If we allow Davis this conscientious objection then we’d best prepare to be refused government service for all manner of perceived transgressions. All holy texts have proscriptions on virtually every aspect of life. There is no end to the potential objections.

The current obsession with same-sex marriage doesn’t mean that’s where it will end.

Allowing government employees to decide to whom they will or will not provide service based on their religious beliefs is not respecting those beliefs; it is inflicting them on the rest of us.

Public officials are absolutely entitled to their religious belief system. It is their right. It is not their right to hold office. If they cannot reconcile their duties with their beliefs, they should resign from office.

Meanwhile, on the traveling circus known as the presidential campaign, so-called super PACs (political action committees) are having a most excellent time thanks to a relative handful of very wealthy contributors (a super-PAC is an "independent expenditureonly committee" that can raise unlimited sums from donors who can make unlimited contributions; it is not allowed to coordinate activities with the campaign of the candidate or candidates it supports... wink, wink).

A pair of Supreme Court decisions that took the reins off how much individuals, corporations, unions can contribute to super PACs has unleashed the big boys and girls.

It started in the 2012 presidential cycle. The Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan, nonprofit research and education outfit that keeps track of such things, reports that in 2012 there was about $6 billion spent on all campaigns. One ten-thousandth of the population contributed 28 percent of that total.

Fast-forward to this year and super PACs are now a full-blown industry.

Michael Kranish reports in The Boston Globe how Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential effort has exploited the new reality. Cruz has a presidential campaign committee and four supportive super PACs. Contributions to the official campaign are limited by federal campaign laws. Contributions to the super-PACs have no limits.

The Cruz campaign committee has raised about $15 million. His super PACs have raised $36 million from just six donors.

Nationally, as of June 30th, again courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation, about 48,000 Americans have contributed $130 million to various presidential campaign committees for the 2016 cycle. During the same time, 65 very rich Americans have contributed $132 million to various political super PACs.

This is more than a minor imbalance; this is the legal purchasing of elections, and possibly politicians. No backroom deals needed when the law permits the deals in the front room.

What do they want? They all want something, whether it’s a social agenda or an end to government regulations and taxes. They aren’t writing checks for tens of millions because they’re altruists. What they want in 2016 is their very own president.

Money has always found a seat at the political decision-making table. This year money is determined to not just have a seat but to own the table, the seats, the building, and the person in the Oval Office making those decisions.

Trending

Mysterious Michigan Reads

We can’t think of a better way to spend spring break than with a great book. Northern Express asked local bookseller... Read More >>

Heirloom Recipes With Heritage, History, and Nostalgia

Before we begin to stash our coats and put winter behind us, let us remember what years past have taught us…fake sp... Read More >>

A Floral Family Affair

In the quaint downtown of Elk Rapids sits Golden Hill Farms, a shop where the artistry of floristry meets the rustic charm... Read More >>

A Look at Originalism

O Tempora O Mores! Oh the times, oh the culture. This Latin phrase relates to both the 18th century and our current times.... Read More >>