Upside-Down to the NYT is Right Side Up

The First Amendment, Upside Down

"The Supreme Court decision striking down public matching funds in Arizona’s campaign finance system is a serious setback for American democracy."

When this sentence is read in the New York Times, it means that the USSC decision has advanced democracy at the expense of government control of government.

"In the Citizens United case, the court ruled that the government may not ban corporations, unions and other moneyed institutions from spending in political campaigns."

So, allowing citizens and legal US entities to participate in the democratic process by supporting candidates through contributions is destructive to American democracy as the NYT sees it.

"The Arizona decision is a companion to that destructive landmark ruling. It takes away a vital, innovative way of ensuring that candidates who do not have unlimited bank accounts can get enough public dollars to compete effectively.

"Arizona’s campaign finance law provided a set amount of money in initial public support for candidates who opted into its financing system, depending on the type of election. If a candidate faced a rival who opted out, the state would match the spending of the privately financed candidate and independent groups supporting him, up to triple the initial amount. Once that limit is reached, the publicly financed candidate receives no other public funds and is barred from using private contributions, no matter how much more the privately financed candidate spends."

In effect, the Arizona law pitted the voters of the state against the taxpayers of the state. Voters' contributions to the candidate they personally support would be off-set by taxpayer dollars supporting the candidate they oppose. Once again, the NYT uses some sort of NewSpeak inversion of reality to come to an upside down conclusion.