R2-D2, Campaign Finance, And The US Constitution

When the Star Wars movies were theatrically re-released in the late 1990's, George Lucas added strange new layers of CG effects, like a sliding Jabba the Hutt, who because of prevailing technologies, could not slide in 1977.

Modifications did not stop there. A Blu-ray release featured further accoutrements, like new rocks in front of R2-D2. 

Such changes are detailed thoroughly here: http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-one.html (source for images below)

original...

...and Blu-ray. Great.

Some relics form the past remain important, though, so Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford will return for Episode 7.

The point?

Star Wars, like the U.S. Constitution, is a living document.

Senate Democrats announced this week their intention to vote on a constitutional amendment that would expressly allow for campaign finance reform laws. The amendment would not itself contain new restrictions on campaign spending, but would give Congress and states the authority to pass such laws. That authority needs to be carved out because the U.S. Supreme Court has recently and repeatedly ruled that the Constitution, as written, guarantees the rights of wealthy people to have disproportionate influence on our elections, the rights of corporations to pursue happiness, and so on.

Achieving the necessary passage by supermajority in the Congress and by legislatures in 38 states seems unlikely. That's because campaign finance reform is, like everything, likely to be cast by politicians and media figures as a strictly partisan question. The American public may not see it that way, though.

In a Gallup poll from last year, "80% of nearly every major demographic and political group" supported a hypothetical limit on the amount congressional candidates could raise or spend in a campaign. That's a lot of people. But popular as this concepts is, such a spending limit would surely be ruled an unconstitutional limit on free speech. Hence the role of the amendment, which would also allow for limits on candidate spending and campaign spending by outside groups.

Of course, what people think should happen is not necessarily related to what their elected representatives will vote for. (See background checks, minimum wage, etc.) If voters remain in favor of fundraising and spending limitations though, Republicans' lockstep opposition to any campaign finance restrictions may prove untenable. People, somewhere, are realizing this, and will soon by trying to convince you that spending limits are a bad thing.

(Jar Jar Binks, "A clumsy, well-meaning Gungan outcast on Naboo," via starwars.com)