Hello all :)

In the shadow of Obama's finally appearing to get a clue as to what he's up against (namely, his announcement this morning, with Paul Volcker at his side, of his plan to enact new banking regulations which would partially separate consumer banks from their speculative activities), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today on Citizens United vs. FEC, reversing a 1907 decision enacted during Teddy Roosevelt's tenure.

Live blog: http://www.scotusblog.com PDF of the decision (5-4): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

If this decision stands, the corporate takeover of our government will be complete. Corporations will now have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns directly, as if everything they spend on lobbying wasn't enough already, all neatly wrapped up in sanctified First Amendment free speech rights. It allows unlimited election spending by *all* corporations, even foreign ones. Given who already owns us these days I fail to see how the SCOTUS doesn't see this as a fundamental sovereignty issue, as well as a threat to the integrity of 'one man, one vote' democracy, and Barack Obama (whom I heard the most awesome slur for ever yesterday in terms of framing his noble impotence so far but which I'll save for another thread) has come out as hotly as... well, as he does, against it, threatening a legislative response, and a constitutional amendment is being discussed in the House.

I don't know if any of you have kept up with Alan Grayson of Florida in recent weeks, but he has recently introduced several bills aimed at stemming the tide of corporate cash that is expected to hit Washington in the wake of this, with such colorful names as The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act, the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, the End Political Kickbacks Act, and two other measures - but these will be sandbags on wholly inadequate levies (mispelling-pun intentional ;) ) against a flood that will spread anywhere there are interests to be bought.

This ruling shows just how crucial Bush's SCOTUS picks (Roberts and Alito), enabled by a SCOTUS who enabled him, were, and this decision may end up being the greatest long-term tragedy for the nation of all the miserable consequences his election/re-election have wrought.

I do hope that Obama sticks to his guns on this and gives Congress his full support (as opposed to, you know, that *awesome* health care support) up to and including a Constitutional Amendment for meaningful legislative redress of this threat to our Republic - for there's no question that is what we are facing here. It is doubtful that such could be assembled before the fall elections, but unless something is done I think that there will soon be even less question than there is currently as to whether the floor will be recognizing the Senators from Wellpoint, Goldman Sachs, et al.

Such things usually are just barometers of impotent rage, but if you are so inclined, visit Alan Grayson's site www.savedemocracy.net (http://www.savedemocracy.net) , and sign his petition. http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4&tag=redirect

Sincerely,
Nydia

P.S. Please take my formatting, you worthless piece of trash! This walloftext isn't intentional.

P.S. I have no idea why this miserable board isn't accepting my paragraph formatting, as it already ate my post twice (and I logged in and enabled ayonae.com... twice). As to my whereabouts, I'm still lurking occasionally, just too enraged at what has been happening in Washington (greatest public mandate ever, pissed away) to do much more than rant, but perhaps I'll share some of that bile sometime ;).

Regards,
Nydia

I don't see how anyone in their right mind can see this as being a change for good.

Not to be blatantly partisan about this, but is it really any surprise that this ended the way it did? I saw this coming when it was escalated to the Supreme Court. Bush put 3 justices on the bench, Reagan put 2 - guess which 5 thought this was a brilliant idea?

Not to be blatantly partisan about this, but is it really any surprise that this ended the way it did? I saw this coming when it was escalated to the Supreme Court. Bush put 3 justices on the bench, Reagan put 2 - guess which 5 thought this was a brilliant idea?

Yes, this is all a mess clearly created by one party /guffaw

This specific mess was, in fact. Eventually you guys really need to stop acting like two bad choices are always equally bad and any malfeasance or incompetence magically moots any particulars of a situation.

You could be even more specific about which particular subset of the party in question was responsible. But that would involve all those pesky facts and uncomfortable questions without yes/no answers.

Newt Gingrich was on the radio on the way home tonight calling this a triumph for free speech, and that now the little guy can compete equally against incumbents. His point of view was that newcomers to the political arena can now go to corporations for the funds they need, and while that may be true, I wonder if the justices really considered the consequences of this?

Yes, this is all a mess clearly created by one party /guffaw

Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. It was clearly exactly that and if you can prove to us otherwise I'd love to see it.

This issue echoes a larger capitalism vs socialism argument. In free markets people are free to do or not do business where they see fit. In this model the individual is expected to be informed and business literate. Unfortunately the average citizen is illiterate and uninformed. The sellers are the smart ones and the buyers are the dumb ones. Thats where government and socialism come in, to protect the gullible, uninformed buyers / voters.

The pro arguments of this decision argue that it is a victory for free speech. They argue that the voting citizenry are smart and can weed through the propoganda that the paid media produce. We all know this to be totally false.

The real question is; does this decision trump mccain - feingold?

Effectively yes. MF still limits direct contributions, but it basically no longer matters since corporations can fund the campaigning activities directly and have, in effect, become the constituency of every district in every state.

I don't know, this strikes me as the kind of decision that is bad yet correct at the same time--kind of like letting a dangerous criminal off the hook on a valid technicality. I guess it's a question of whether principle trumps end result.

Just thought I'd post a link to Stevens' dissent here as it's so striking in its clarity and stridency:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

For the click-averse, the highlights below:

He pulls no punches with regard to his opinion as to the harm this ruling will cause, both as a result of its policy outcome, and for the procedural integrity of the court:

The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell , it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question.

He also calls out the majority into question for their motive in *manufacturing* a need for a facial inquiry in this case where none was needed (the case could, and should, have been resolved on much narrower grounds):

Long quote, but it's so stunning, I feel it's worth pasting:

Setting the case for reargument was a constructive step, but it did not cure this fundamental problem. Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.

As-Applied and Facial Challenges

This Court has repeatedly emphasized in recent years that “[f]acial challenges are disfavored.” Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party , 552 U. S. 442, 450 (2008) ; see also Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng. , 546 U. S. 320, 329 (2006) (“[T]he ‘normal rule’ is that ‘partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the required course,’ such that a ‘statute may … be declared invalid to the extent that it reaches too far, but otherwise left intact’ ” (quoting Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. , 472 U. S. 491, 504 (1985) ; alteration in original)). By declaring §203 facially unconstitutional, our colleagues have turned an as-applied challenge into a facial challenge, in defiance of this principle.

This is not merely a technical defect in the Court’s decision. The unnecessary resort to a facial inquiry “run[s] contrary to the fundamental principle of judicial restraint that courts should neither anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it nor formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.” Washington State Grange , 552 U. S., at 450 (internal quotation marks omitted). Scanting that principle “threaten[s] to short circuit the democratic process by preventing laws embodying the will of the people from being implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitution.” Id., at 451. These concerns are heightened when judges overrule settled doctrine upon which the legislature has relied. The Court operates with a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’ most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics. It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well.

The problem goes still deeper, for the Court does all of this on the basis of pure speculation. Had Citizens United maintained a facial challenge, and thus argued that there are virtually no circumstances in which BCRA §203 can be applied constitutionally, the parties could have developed, through the normal process of litigation, a record about the actual effects of §203, its actual burdens and its actual benefits, on all manner of corporations and unions. 4 “Claims of facial invalidity often rest on speculation,” and consequently “raise the risk of premature interpretation of statutes on the basis of factually barebones records.” Id., at 450 (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the record is not simply incomplete or unsatisfactory; it is nonexistent. Congress crafted BCRA in response to a virtual mountain of research on the corruption that previous legislation had failed to avert. The Court now negates Congress’ efforts without a shred of evidence on how §203 or its state-law counterparts have been affecting any entity other than Citizens United.

and closes by stating:

At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

If you have the time, read this dissent (as well as the majority opinion for contrast), and then ask yourself how those lofty ideals of 'strict constitutionalism', 'judicial restraint' and 'not legislating from the bench' that the Right loves to throw up (so to speak ;) ) square with the genesis and content of the decision in this case.

Regards,
Nydia

I wonder what puppet China is going to buy?

I doubt this will get repealed. No one gives a crap. Most everyone feels the large multinationals run the US anyway and as long as there are hot showers and cold beer at the end of the day it doesn't matter who runs things. This just makes it more transparent to even the stupidest of the stupid, which is most of us. Maybe Walmart might run our country better anyway and they are already China-mart so who is the wiser?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.):

"For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process."

Funny I thought you had to be a US citizen to vote. Buying one is easier than actually going to cast one. I wonder if our elected officials take Paypal? Well congrats on your vote, Volkswagen, Rio Tinto, Lenovo, Sinopec, Shell Oil, BP, Toyota, etc. Oh, does this mean if I am an employee of or a shareholder of a large corp does that mean I get to vote TWICE?

Any of the Cherry Koolaid swillers have anything to add here? This week has been a dream come true for you, right? Got to throw some pretty big sticks in some spokes so we can rest assured that our government will be even more bogged down in monkey poop fights than ever. WOOT!

No? Oh come on! You should be happy! Reagan, if he was alive would probably have a huge boner right now. No Viagra needed!

Well, this guys posted rant here pretty well sums up what I am thinking right now:

http://themoderatevoice.com/55549/patience-patience-and-more-patience-needed/

Enjoy.

This issue echoes a larger capitalism vs socialism argument. In free markets people are free to do or not do business where they see fit. In this model the individual is expected to be informed and business literate. Unfortunately the average citizen is illiterate and uninformed. The sellers are the smart ones and the buyers are the dumb ones. Thats where government and socialism come in, to protect the gullible, uninformed buyers / voters.
Informed won't be enough, not when you consider the significant amount of resources a corporation can bring to bear. Free market ideas tend to be a bit dated, and most free market ideas end with some bizarre connection to founding fathers and original intents for the country and so forth. The only difference being informed will have is if officials start wearing patches like Nascar sponsorships.

I do not know enough about this topic to comment one way or the other, but I wll say this. You're nieve if you thought Corps. and other big money sources did not already conrtrol the Whitehouse.

And based on an article on KOS today and linked to the original source for clarity, I bring you this truly stunning, given yesterday's ruling, speech made by Chief Justice Roberts in 2005 before his Senate nominating committee:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/12/roberts.statement/index.html

My personal appreciation that I owe a great debt to others reinforces my view that a certain humility should characterize the judicial role.

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.

The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.

But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda.

I have no platform.

Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes.

I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.



If I am confirmed, I will be vigilant to protect the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court, and I will work to ensure that it upholds the rule of law and safeguards those liberties that make this land one of endless possibilities for all Americans.

Given the eagerness with which the Roberts court seized on this case for hearing *and* elevated/broadened the question within it in order to create the *opportunity* to write law, it's kind of breathtaking, isn't it?

Justice Stevens is correct in that this ruling has done damage to the integrity of the institution of the Supreme Court itself.

Regards,
Nydia

Nyd I am actually agast...Nay..Flabbergasted that you seem to be caught by total and complete shonk by this. Judges no matter what flavor legislate from the bench now adays... Does it make it right? HEEEELLLLLZ no, but it seems to be the new norm. If it were majority Democrat nominated judges I am positive they would rule on topics that wold have Republicans frothing at the mouth...

Side note dont the justices have to pass a interview, by members of the senate house ? Who had the majority seats in those the last 8 years ?

I know corporations are bad the president tells me so. They dont even employ 30% of America, yet there house hold names have been buying there way into capital hill for over a century.

From what Ive read this isnt just about corporations but could of damaged free speech as well. Got to pick up the kid but....

Quote


Fox Newscaster: He tried taking water from toilets, but it is Secretary Not Sure who finds himself in the toilet now. And as history pulls down its pants and prepares to lower ITS ASS on Not Sure's head, it will be daddy justice crapping on him this time.
Formica: Thank you, Velveeta. Well, it started off boring and slow, with Not Sure trying to bullshit everyone with a bunch of smart talk. Blaah, blaah, blaah, you got to believe me. That part of the trial sucked.

Side note dont the justices have to pass a interview, by members of the senate house ? Who had the majority seats in those the last 8 years ?

We had a Republican dominated Congress from ~1994-2006. Additionally, very few appointments are ever actually denied a seat (in fact, most of them don't even getting very many dissenting votes, it's interesting to note which ones do (hello Alito 58-42!) and I'll leave you to guess who those were).

Face it, if you voted Republican in 2000-2006, you enabled Islamic extremists, Chinese authoritarian communists, and South American drug cartels to buy advertising time during elections for the purpose of modifying their outcome, legally. Think that's hyperbole? Read the decision.

Splitting hairs, it was for the most part 50/50 with some Clinton cigars pushing the tilt the other way.

This was virtually non covered in the media until the result came out. Unless you watch Al Jazeer which seems to have had the best coverage, its still small print on fox cnn msn ect. Some of which blame the Hillary Clinton movie which got the snow ball rolling. But

" Didn't they just essentially say that the First Amendment Right to free speech by the corporations and unions was being violated? They didn't open campaigns up for corporate donors, but they do negate laws keeping corps/unions from advertising or promoting a candidate directly."

I understand its all cool if its *Acorn selling Im with idiot signs for the media to cover to the Captain Crunch generation in the streets that the MAJORITY house speaker, Bill Clinton and others referred to as (deorgatory remark people) until the third strike out in Mass.

If Ive got to pick a corporate sponsor as my voice then Brawndo with Taco Bell as a close second.

This was virtually non covered in the media until the result came out. Unless you watch Al Jazeer which seems to have had the best coverage, its still small print on fox cnn msn ect. Some of which blame the Hillary Clinton movie which got the snow ball rolling.

And why would they bother covering it? They'll love it. Their revenues just jumped from sponsorship and Fox News can drop its little remaining pretense of actual reporting and be legally able to do 100% propaganda as 1st amendment protected speech.

I agree. We can just give control of society to Murdoch, Turner and who ever is the flavor of the month.

If things are to become as been stated, Then I guess we will see more presidential hopefuls turning down 85 million dollar tax payer dollars, for big money Hollywood, silicon valley campaigns

maybe they will even wear cool Nascar style suits.

P.S. I have no idea why this miserable board isn't accepting my paragraph formatting, as it already ate my post twice (and I logged in and enabled ayonae.com... twice)

That's sort of like using AdBlock and then blaming the Internet for your not seeing ads.

Anyone still following this? So the Democrat corporate weiner suckers really wimped out and really disappointed me with their bill they are trying to pass. Instead of doing anything about the influx of corporate money they want to make the CEOs get in front of the ads saying "I approve this message". How will that help any? Not allowing Govt. Contractors and Stimulus companies only makes sense, and the rest of the bill is just pretty weak. All in all disappointing.