Court eases business, union election spending rule

[kwame k]

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 23 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections Thursday, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The decision could drastically alter who gives and gets hundreds of millions of dollars in this year's crucial midterm elections.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned two of its own decisions as well as the decades-old law that said companies and labor unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's congressional elections.
"It's the Super Bowl of bad decisions," said Common Cause president Bob Edgar, a former congressman from Pennsylvania.

The opinion goes to the heart of laws dating back to the Gilded Age when Congress passed the Tillman Act in 1907 banning corporations from donating money directly to federal candidates. Though that prohibition still stands, the same can't be said for much of the century-long effort that followed to separate politics from corporate money.

The decision's most immediate effect is to permit corporate and union-sponsored political ads to run right up to the moment of an election, and to allow them to call for the election or defeat of a candidate. In presidential elections and in highly contested congressional contests, that could mean a dramatic increase in television advertising competing for time and public attention.

In the long term, corporations, their industry associations and labor unions are free to tap their treasuries to assist candidates, although the spending may not be coordinated with the candidates.

"It's going to be the Wild Wild West," said Ben Ginsberg, a Republican attorney who has represented several GOP presidential campaigns. "If corporations and unions can give unlimited amounts ... it means that the public debate is significantly changed with a lot more voices and it means that the loudest voices are going to be corporations and unions."

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader who filed the first lawsuit challenging the McCain-Feingold law, praised the court for "restoring the First Amendment rights" of corporations and unions. "By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers," McConnell said.

The case does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case.

Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained "the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy."

Kennedy, who dissented from the rulings the court overturned Thursday, said, "No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."

Stevens, in a 90-page opinion that dwarfed Kennedy's, complained that the court majority overreached by throwing out earlier Supreme Court decisions that had not been at issue when this case first came to the court.
"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," Stevens said.

The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute movie that was very critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.
But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.

The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending.
The justices convened in a special argument session in September, Sotomayor's first. The conservative justices gave every indication then that they were prepared to take the steps they did on Thursday.

The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors. The justices filed five separate opinions totaling 176 pages.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_supreme_court_campaign_finance;_ylt=Aj3fUOnjYX4 xnFFTuZvXClyyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTMyOGU1YnZlBGFzc2V0A2F wLzIwMTAwMTIxL3VzX3N1cHJlbWVfY291cnRfY2FtcGFpZ25fZ mluYW5jZQRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQR zbGsDY291cnRlYXNlc2J1)

[kwame k]

Wonder how they'll blame this on Obama when he hasn't appointed a single judge to the high court, yet.

[FORD]

Is it FASCISM yet? :mad:

This is precisely why the unelected Chimp appointed an unqualifed assclown named Opie Roberts to the Supreme Court.

[kwame k]

This has got to be how people felt during Nixon's Presidency and then Ford's. :pullinghair:

It's getting to the point where they don't even try and hide the corruption/influence peddling......

[Blackflag]

Wonder how they'll blame this on Obama when he hasn't appointed a single judge to the high court, yet.

Good question, Kwame.

[FORD]

Except that he actually did. And she opposed this shitty decision.

[kwame k]

Good question, Kwame.

You guys will figure it out........

[kwame k]

Except that he actually did. And she opposed this shitty decision.

That's right, Sonia Sotomayor....I keep forgetting about her.

[kwame k]

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer – 30 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is condemning a decision by the Supreme Court to roll back restrictions on campaign donations by corporations and unions.
In a written statement, Obama says the campaign finance ruling will lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics." Obama declared that his administration will work with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a "forceful response" to the high court's action.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.
Obama called it a big victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_campaign_finance;_ylt=Av05UBGwlXTI5aXhZv9 pZTSyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJxZnE3cWRxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTA wMTIxL3VzX29iYW1hX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2UEY3BvcwMxB HBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA29iYW1hYmxhc3R zYw--)

[FORD]

Full text of the President's statement:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

Not crazy about the "bipartisan" thing, as the Repukes won't likely be interested in any real solutions - even John McCain didn't seem to care much about "McCain/Feingold" in the 2008 campaign.

[LoungeMachine]

Corporations are not persons.

:gulp:

Fascism is back

[kwame k]

Not crazy about the "bipartisan" thing, as the Repukes won't likely be interested in any real solutions - even John McCain didn't seem to care much about "McCain/Feingold" in the 2008 campaign.

None of them seemed too interested in it........

I'm sure we'll get the typical public financed elections only posts but the reality is....as long as anyone can use the millions that corporate donors are free to give, the other side, no matter how well intended, will use that money too.

There is and has never been campaign finance reform in this country.

[FORD]

Politicians should now be required to wear their corporate sponsors' logos on their uniform, just like NASCAR drivers.
Here's Senator Max Baucus ("D" - insurance whore) modeling his new uniform......

http://newworldodor.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/baucus_whore.jpg

[Sgt Schultz]

Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment
Obama preparing ‘Forceful Response’

Posted By Frank Ross On January 21, 2010

Fans of the First Amendment can rejoice. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down large portions of the abomination known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues.

http://bigjournalism.com/files/2010/01/FirstAmendment.gif

From The New York Times [1]:

WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court [2] on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy [3] wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

The case arose over the documentary, Hillary: The Movie [4], produced by David Bossie and directed by Alan Peterson, which a lower court had ruled violated provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better know as McCain-Feingold against corporate political involvement. From the Citizens United website [5]:

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court rules in part in our favor 5-4!

Ruling: Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. Austin v. Mich is overruled, as is part of McConnell v. FEC. Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer dissent. The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy is 57 pages, and Justice Stevens’ partial dissent is 90 pages long.

Here is the decision:

09 [6] –

When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought [Justice Anthony Kennedy [7] wrote for the majority]. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
UPDATE:

Naturally, President Obama immediately issued a statement opposing the decision. As the Washington Post [8] reports::

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests [ed. hmmm... no mention of Unions] that marshall their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. … We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.

So there it is: the President and members of the Mandarin Class are preparing a “forceful response” to the First Amendment.

Had enough yet?
--------------------------------------

Article printed from Big Journalism: - Big Journalism (http://bigjournalism.com)

URL to article: Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment. Obama preparing ‘Forceful Response’ - Big Journalism (http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/21/supreme-court-drop-kicks-mccainfeingold-scores-victory-for-1st-amendment/)

[SIZE="1"][1] The New York Times: Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp)

[2] Supreme Court: U.S. Supreme Court - The New York Times (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org)

[3] Anthony M. Kennedy: Anthony M. Kennedy News - The New York Times (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/anthony_m_kennedy/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

[4] Hillary: The Movie: Hillary The Movie (http://www.hillarythemovie.com/)

[5] From the Citizens United website: Citizens United :: Dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control. (http://www.citizensunited.org/)

[6] 09: 09 (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/22956721/09)

[7] Anthony Kennedy: Bloomberg.com: Search News - [ Anthony Kennedy] (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Anthony+Kennedy&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1)

[8] Washington Post: washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012102654.html)

[kwame k]

You're even dumber than your name sake........

Free speech for corporations, that's what you think this is about?

Wow, you voted for Bush twice, didn't you?

[LoungeMachine]

Ironic.

Corporations are afforded free speech, but their employees aren't

:gulp:

Speak you mind? Get fired.

[FORD]

If corporations are "persons" then when can we execute the oil companies for mass murder?

[Unchainme]

What's happening on both sides is pretty damn disgusting. It's becoming the plot of rollerball pretty damn quickly.

[kwame k]

Gotta give it to Sgt Shitz, he goes on faith alone.


Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

[Seshmeister]

Can they not even find 9 judges that haven't been bought?

[LoungeMachine]

Can they not even find 9 judges that haven't been bought?

No.

:gulp:

[FORD]

Olbermann: U.S. government for sale
With no limits on campaign financing, corporations will take over the government
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
updated 6:29 p.m. PT, Thurs., Jan. 21, 2010

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on the Supreme Court's ruling today in the case titled "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission."

On the cold morning of Friday, March 6th, 1857, a very old man who was born just eight months and thirteen days after the Declaration of Independence was adopted; a man who was married to the sister of the man who wrote "The Star Spangled Banner;" a man who was enlightened enough to have freed his own slaves and given pensions to the ones who had become too old to work read aloud, in a reed-thin voice, a very long document.

In it, he ruled on a legal case involving a slave, brought by his owner to live in a free state; yet to remain a slave.

The slave sought his freedom, and sued. And looking back over legal precedent, and the Constitution, and the America in which it was created, this judge ruled that no black man could ever be considered an actual citizen of the United States.

"They had for more than a century before been, regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

The case, of course, was Dred Scott. The old man was the fifth Chief Justice of the United States of America, Roger Brooke Tawney. And the outcome, he believed, would be to remove the burning question of the abolition of slavery from the political arena for once and for all.

The outcome, in fact, was the Civil War. No American ever made a single bigger misjudgment. No American ever carried the responsibility for the deaths and suffering of more Americans. No American ever was more quickly vilified. Within four years Chief Justice Tawney's rulings were being ignored in the South and the North.

Within five, President Lincoln at minimum contemplated arresting him. Within seven, he died, in poverty, while still Chief Justice. Within eight, Congress had voted to not place a bust of him alongside those of the other former Chief Justices.

But good news tonight, Roger B. Tawney is off the hook.

Today, the Supreme Court, of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than "Dred Scott v Sandford," declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th Century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people, any restrictions on how these corporate-beings spend their money on political advertising, are unconstitutional.

In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886. In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections.

None. They can spend all the money they want. And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service.

And if senators and congressmen and governors and mayors and councilmen and everyone in between are entirely beholden to the corporations for election and re-election to office soon they will erase whatever checks there might still exist to just slow down the ability of corporations to decide the laws.

It is almost literally true that any political science fiction nightmare you can now dream up, no matter whether you are conservative or liberal, it is now legal. Because the people who can make it legal, can now be entirely bought and sold, no actual citizens required in the campaign-fund-raising process.

And the entirely bought and sold politicians, can change any laws. And any legal defense you can structure now, can be undone by the politicians who will be bought and sold into office this November, or two years from now.

And any legal defense which honest politicians can somehow wedge up against them this November, or two years from now, can be undone by the next even larger set of politicians who will be bought and sold into office in 2014, or 2016, or 2018.

Mentioning Lincoln's supposed ruminations about arresting Roger B. Tawney, he didn't say the original of this, but what the hell:

Right now, you can prostitute all of the politicians some of the time, and prostitute some of the politicians all the time, but you cannot prostitute all the politicians all the time. Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts this will change. Unless this mortal blow is somehow undone, within ten years, every politician in this country will be a prostitute.

And now let's contemplate what that perfectly symmetrical, money-driven world might look like. Be prepared, first, for laws criminalizing or at least neutering unions. In today's Court Decision, they are the weaker of the non-human sisters unfettered by the Court. So, like in ancient Rome or medieval England, they will necessarily be strangled by the stronger sibling, the corporations, so they pose no further threat to the Corporations' total control of our political system.

Be prepared, then, for the reduction of taxes for the wealth, and for the corporations, and the elimination of the social safety nets for everybody else, because money spent on the poor means less money left for the corporations.

Be prepared, then, for wars sold as the "new products" which Andy Card once described them as, year-after-year, as if they were new Fox Reality Shows, because Military Industrial Complex Corporations are still corporations. Be prepared, then, for the ban on same-sex marriage, on abortion, on evolution, on separation of church and state. The most politically agitated group of citizens left are the evangelicals, throw them some red meat to feed their holier-than-thou rationalizations, and they won't care what else you do to this corporate nation.

Be prepared, then, for racial and religious profiling, because you've got to blame somebody for all the reductions in domestic spending and civil liberties, just to make sure the agitators against the United Corporate States of America are kept unheard.

Be prepared for those poor dumb manipulated bastards, the Tea Partiers, to have a glorious few years as the front men as the corporations that bankroll them slowly unroll their total control of our political system. And then be prepared to watch them be banished, maybe outlawed, when a few of the brighter ones suddenly realize that the corporations have made them the Judas Goats of American Freedom.

And be prepared, then, for the bank reforms that President Obama has just this day vowed to enable, to be rolled back by his successor purchased by the banks, with the money President Bush gave them his successor, presumably President Palin, because if you need a friendly face of fascism, you might as well get one that can wink, and if you need a tool of whichever large industries buy her first, you might as well get somebody who lives up to that word "tool."

Be prepared for the little changes, too. If there are any small towns left to take-over, Wal-Mart can now soften them up with carpet advertising for their Wal-Mart town council candidates, brought to you by Wal-Mart.

Be prepared for the Richard Mellon Scaifes to drop such inefficiencies as vanity newspapers and simply buy and install their own city governments in the Pittsburghs. Be prepared for the personally wealthy men like John Kerry to become the paupers of the Senate, or the ones like Mike Bloomberg not even surviving the primary against Halliburton's choice for Mayor of New York City.

Be prepared for the end of what you're watching now. I don't just mean me, or this program, or this network. I mean all the independent news organizations, and the propagandists like Fox for that matter, because Fox inflames people against the state, and after today's ruling, the corporations will only need a few more years of inflaming people, before the message suddenly shifts to "everything's great."

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don't even realize it: today, John Roberts just cut their throats too. So, with critics silenced or bought off, and even the town assessor who lives next door to you elected to office with campaign funds 99.9 percent drawn from corporate coffers — what are you going to do about it? The Internet!

The Internet? Ask them about the Internet in China. Kiss net neutrality goodbye. Kiss whatever right to privacy you think you currently have, goodbye. And anyway, what are you going to complain about, if you don't even know it happened? In the new world unveiled this morning by John Roberts, who stops Rupert Murdoch from buying the Associated Press?

This decision, which in mythology would rank somewhere between "The Bottomless Pit" and "The Opening Of Pandora's Box," got next to no coverage in the right-wing media today, almost nothing in the middle, and a lot less than necessary on the left.

The right wing won't even tell their constituents that they are being sold into bondage alongside the rest of us. And why should they? For them, the start of this will be wonderful.

The Republicans, Conservatives, Joe Liebermans, and Tea Partiers are in the front aisle at the political prostitution store. They are specially discounted old favorites for their Corporate Masters. Like the first years of irreversible climate change, for the conservatives the previously cold winter will grow delightfully warm. Only later will it be hot. Then unbearable. Then flames.

And the conservatives will burn with the rest of us. And they'll never know it happened. So, what are you going to do about it? Turn to free speech advocates? These were the free speech advocates! The lawyer for that Humunculous who filed this suit, Dave Bossie, is Floyd Abrams.

Floyd Abrams, who has spent his life defending American freedoms, especially freedom of speech. Apparently this life was spent this way in order to guarantee that when it really counted, he could help the corporations destroy free speech.

His argument, translated from self-satisfied legal jargon, is that as a function of the First Amendment, you must allow for the raping and pillaging of the First Amendment, by people who can buy the First Amendment.

He will go down in the history books as the Quisling of freedom of speech in this country. That is if the corporations who now buy the school boards which decide which history books get printed, approve. If there are still history books. So, what are you going to do about it?

Russ Feingold told me today there might yet be ways to work around this, to restrict corporate governance, and how corporations make and spend their money. I pointed out that any such legislation, even if it somehow sneaked past the last U.S. Senate not funded by a generous gift from the Chubb Group would eventually wind up in front of a Supreme Court, and whether or not John Roberts is still at its head would be irrelevant.

The next nine men and women on the Supreme Court will get there not because of their judgement nor even their politics. They will get there because they were appointed by purchased presidents and confirmed by purchased Senators.

This is what John Roberts did today. This is a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little actual Democracy is left in this Democracy. It is government of the people by the corporations for the corporations. It is the Dark Ages. It is our Dred Scott. I would suggest a revolution but a revolution against the corporations? The corporations that make all the guns and the bullets?

Maybe it won't be this bad. Maybe the corporations legally defined as human beings, but without the pesky occasional human attributes of conscience and compassion maybe when handed the only keys to the electoral machine, they will simply not re-design America in their own corporate image.

But let me leave you with this final question: After today who's going to stop them?



<embed name="msnbc3b704e" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=34985508&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="opaque" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

[Nitro Express]

That's right, Sonia Sotomayor....I keep forgetting about her.

She was one of the judges who voted against this horrible ruling. Now Exxon can bribe politicians with billions of dollars available for political advertising.

[Nitro Express]

Ironic.

Corporations are afforded free speech, but their employees aren't

:gulp:

Speak you mind? Get fired.

No kidding. Most corporations are owned by stockholders from around the world including people who are enemies of the United States. Why should constitutional rights apply to partially or 100% foreign owned entities?

[Nitro Express]

Without throwing a wrench into this machine there won't be Democrats and Republicans, there will be corporations, corporate whores, and slaves. We are going back to the dark ages.

[Sgt Schultz]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/2735857581_36a710ab64.jpg
http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/glitters/d/drama_queen-6989.gif

[kwame k]

Nazi buffoon.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll103/realtodd/sgt20schultzsmalloa0.jpg

[FORD]

Here's a little history lesson from Thom Hartmann on the origins of this "corporate personhood" bullshit.....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pUYPO2b2jDQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pUYPO2b2jDQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[FORD]

The Supreme Court Just Handed Anyone, Including bin Laden or the Chinese Govt., Control of Our Democracy
By Greg Palast, AlterNet
Posted on January 22, 2010, Printed on January 23, 2010
The Supreme Court Just Handed Anyone, Including bin Laden or the Chinese Govt., Control of Our Democracy | | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/story/145354/)

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.

The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.

The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.

I'm losing sleep over the millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."

George Bush's former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued the case to the court on behalf of Citizens United, a corporate front that funded an attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson's wife died on September 11, 2001 on the hijacked airliner that hit the Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I contacted Olson's office to ask how much "Al Qaeda, Inc." should be allowed to donate to support the election of his local congressman.

Olson has not responded.

The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign governments. Olson offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.

Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles.

Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums through each of these "unnatural" creatures.

And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?"
We'll never know.

Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision in Citizens United.

We've been there. The 1994 election brought Newt Gingrich to power in a GOP takeover of the Congress funded by a very strange source.

Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing races, Democrats had fallen victim to a flood of last-minute attack ads funded by a group called, "Coalition for Our Children's Future." The $25 million that paid for those ads came, not from concerned parents, but from a corporation called "Triad Inc."

Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the ultra-right-wing billionaire Koch Brothers and their private petroleum company, Koch Industries. Had the corporate connection been proven, the Kochs and their corporation could have faced indictment under federal election law. As of today, such money-poisoned politicking has become legit.

So it's not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns while hidden behind corporate veils. And if so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs.



Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." Palast investigated Triad Inc. for The Guardian (UK). View Palast's reports for BBC TV and Democracy Now! at " + title + " (http://www.gregpalast.com).
© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: The Supreme Court Just Handed Anyone, Including bin Laden or the Chinese Govt., Control of Our Democracy | | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/story/145354/)

[ZahZoo]

Ironic.

Corporations are afforded free speech, but their employees aren't

:gulp:

Speak you mind? Get fired.

I think the irony runs even deeper... we're all talking about freedom of speech which was really never restricted by these laws and previous rulings.

Since when does freedom of speech equate to freedom of spending..?

I can get the aspect of throwing out the restrictions of when something can air which costs money... I don't get the relation on the spending rules.

[Nickdfresh]

Fucking retarded, bent judges!

If corporations have a right to "freedom of speech," then should they not be fined and/or sued for firing employees simply for posting their thoughts on internet blogs, etc.? Why do corporate entities get carte blanche while individuals get fucked by them?

[Nickdfresh]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/2735857581_36a710ab64.jpg
http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/glitters/d/drama_queen-6989.gif

Dude, have another salad you veggie swelling pussy-bitch!

I'm pretty sure you ain't rich, and are the typical enabling assclown that cheers when policies are enacted against his personal, political interests!

You oxygen sucking mindless, droning cheerleader sap. wake the fuck up!!

[Sgt Schultz]

you veggie swelling pussy-bitch - typical enabling assclown - oxygen sucking mindless, droning cheerleader sap

I choked on my coffee from laughing (sorry I didn't die).
I have to give you credit for all the effort.

[Sgt Schultz]

[Sgt Schultz]

The Supreme Court Protected Us On Thursday (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/22/john-lott-supreme-court-campaign-finance-mccain-feingold/)
By John Lott
- FOXNews.com

The Supreme Court did America a service when it tackled campaign finance this week.

Do you want government regulating what movies can be shown to the public? Do you want the government determining what movies can be advertised? Or what books can be sold? Well, the Obama administration actually argued for these regulations before the Supreme Court in defending campaign finance regulations. Actually, they went even further and said that such regulations were essential to limiting how much money is spent on political campaigns.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed. On Thursday, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down a law that had been used to stop the advertising or showing of "Hillary: The Movie" during the 2008 presidential campaign. No one doubts that the movie was critical of Hillary Clinton and that its release was timed precisely to hurt her presidential campaign. What the court couldn't abide was letting the government decide when a movie crossed the line and became too political. The ruling eliminates bans that corporations and unions have faced in trying to influence elections 30 days before a primary election or nominating convention, or within 60 days before a general election.

Campaign finance laws aim to restrict how much money can be spent on campaigns, but, just as Justice Antonin Scalia warned in 2003, “expenditures” can take an essentially unlimited number of forms. "If history teaches us anything, is that when you plug one means of expression, the money will go to whatever means of expression are left," Scalia warned during oral arguments when the McCain-Feingold law was first heard before the court in 2003.

Suppose that a company or a union can't take out radio or television ads supporting a candidate. It still has other options: It can produce a critical movie, such as "Hillary: The Movie," or publish a critical book. Authors making the rounds of radio and television shows during their book tours can help provide information that supports one candidate over another.

Indeed, when President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, first argued the case "Hillary: The Movie" before the Supreme Court last March,
Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. "That's pretty incredible," Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations.

"If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate’s name, it could be covered?” Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: “That’s correct.” “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes.

When the case was reargued before the Supreme Court in September, Stewart was replaced by Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Kagan, realizing that the court was shocked by Stewart's statements, said that pamphlets, not books, could be banned. When Chief Justice John Roberts asked her about pamphlets, here's what she said: "A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering." But Kagan's answer is hardly comforting. Is the government going to have a word limit that lets bureaucrats decide when something goes from being a "pamphlet" to a book? How long would that last? [ed. - hmm, ever hear of a certain pamphlet called [I]Common Sense?]

Of course, those are not the only ways around corporate bans on political advertising. If you want to limit corporations’ influence on elections, what do you do about companies that own newspapers and television news broadcasts? Why is one company that owns a newspaper able to write editorials or publish "news" stories that help one candidate but another company isn’t even able to buy a political ad in that very same newspaper?

Right now, one television series after another somehow works into its story lines a sad tale highlighting the plight of those without health insurance. And these kinds of plot lines don’t just show up in medical dramas. Even crime shows, such as CBS's "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," have gotten into the act. Many would argue that TV dramas provide an inaccurate view of the medicine available to the poor and while other might argue that the shows do a good job, but that isn't the point. The shows are obviously trying to influence public policy. Do we need to assign Federal Election Commission's lawyers to watch hours of television programming just to ensure that no political candidates benefit from the message in these shows?

Campaign finance regulations that limit donations or campaign expenditures also have another downside: they entrench incumbents. It is a lot easier for incumbents, who have had years to determine who their actual and potential donors are, to raise small amounts from a lot of donors. It is also a lot more important for a relatively unknown challenger to spend money on his campaign than it is for the incumbent.

Take the obviously extreme example where campaign expenditures are banned. Clearly, the already well-known incumbent would be virtually assured of winning.

Some states allow corporate and union contributions to candidates. Other states follow what has been the federal law banning those donations. Out of all the different campaign finance laws that have the biggest impact on whether candidates choose to run unopposed are the restrictions on individual and corporate donations to political parties. Regulations governing donations by individuals to political parties and corporate and union to candidates produce the biggest benefit towards protecting incumbents from electoral competition and increasing the probability that they will win re-election. Restricting corporate donations to individual candidates also reduces the number of candidates running for office by the largest amount.

President Obama is already moving to overturn Thursday’s Supreme Court decision. "I am instructing my administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision," President Obama warned after the ruling.

But is this the type of country we want to live in? It is not just health care that the government wants to take over. Now they want to restrict what information we can receive. The very fact that a high-ranking administration official argues for banning certain books right before an election is scary and reminds us of the Chinese Government’s attempt to restrict Google, not of free debate in a free country.

John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and FoxNews.com contributor.

[Kristy]

Is it FASCISM yet? :mad:

This is precisely why the unelected Chimp appointed an unqualifed assclown named Opie Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Think you're putting the cart before the horse. It's no surprise major corporations own politicians no matter what side the of the fence they reside. The only difference now would be the politicians pretty much campaigning like NASCAR drivers showing off which conglomerate they sold their soul to. And isn't shameless self promotion what America is all about anymore? I see some positive upshot in this that the voter will know whom owns who and why from Exxon to Coke-A-Cola to Smith & Wesson.

[Nickdfresh]

The government protected "us?" You mean corporate shills like Rupert Murdoch?

When has the government ever "prevented" the release of a book baring a candidates' name? There are numerous examples of books released in conjunction with elections. Just another red herring justification for taking a payoff...

[Nickdfresh]

I choked on my coffee from laughing (sorry I didn't die).

I would fucking hope not! If you "choked" on a liquid, you really would be a pussybitch...


I have to give you credit for all the effort.

Effort for what? BTW, was your next post really some spam you found to try to rationalize how "great" this is?

[Kristy]

Right now, one television series after another somehow works into its story lines a sad tale highlighting the plight of those without health insurance. And these kinds of plot lines don’t just show up in medical dramas. Even crime shows, such as CBS's "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," have gotten into the act. Many would argue that TV dramas provide an inaccurate view of the medicine available to the poor and while other might argue that the shows do a good job, but that isn't the point. The shows are obviously trying to influence public policy. Do we need to assign Federal Election Commission's lawyers to watch hours of television programming just to ensure that no political candidates benefit from the message in these shows?

Ha! That's laughable. Shows like CSI and their mind-numbing ilk do more than just exploit the poor and low-wage worker who can't get a shot at decent health care for a better life. The exploit the mentally ill, the homeless, the immigrant, the uneducated (or under-educated), also sexual, racial and social classes. It's no shock a show like 'Cops' is nothing more than a jaundice eyed glimpse of cloaked racism and a even more distorted view of the ridiculous "War On Drugs." Shows like "24" stereotype ethnic and religious classes and not one of them gives a Jihadist shit if they are "influencing public policy" or not as long as advertising dollars continue to flow in like a river.

Political candidates only ride on the waters of pop culture for personal gain. They pay heed to public opinion as it relates to current events and not some one hour crime drama. Only a fucking pinhead at Fox would distort such triviality in order to claim government is just too big for it britches anymore. So quit posting this shit, Schultz. Or at least actually read beforehand.

[Sgt Schultz]

\ Effort for what? \

I was giving you a compliment for the colorful put-downs.

[Sgt Schultz]

When has the government ever "prevented" the release of a book baring a candidates' name? There are numerous examples of books released in conjunction with elections. Just another red herring justification for taking a payoff...

The suit was about the release of the Hillary movie being prevented by the FCC from being shown. The justices were asking if it applied to a movie, could it be applied to other kinds of media, like a book - and the Govt. lawyer said yes.

[Sgt Schultz]

Ha! That's laughable. Shows like CSI and their mind-numbing ilk do more than just exploit the poor and low-wage worker who can't get a shot at decent health care for a better life. The exploit the mentally ill, the homeless, the immigrant, the uneducated (or under-educated), also sexual, racial and social classes. It's no shock a show like 'Cops' is nothing more than a jaundice eyed glimpse of cloaked racism and a even more distorted view of the ridiculous "War On Drugs." Shows like "24" stereotype ethnic and religious classes and not one of them gives a Jihadist shit if they are "influencing public policy" or not as long as advertising dollars continue to flow in like a river.

Political candidates only ride on the waters of pop culture for personal gain. They pay heed to public opinion as it relates to current events and not some one hour crime drama. Only a fucking pinhead at Fox would distort such triviality in order to claim government is just too big for it britches anymore. So quit posting this shit, Schultz. Or at least actually read beforehand.

It elicited a long response from you, didn't it? Shall I post only things that won't upset you in the future?

You are so blinded by your hatred towards one (1) network (Fox Derangement Syndrome) out of a gazillion that takes a center-right view of the news that you miss the point.

A stupid law like McCain-Feingold, if closely implemented by a non Left-Wing administration could find all manner of advocacy in regular television programming. The author said;


” Many would argue that TV dramas provide an inaccurate view of the medicine available to the poor and while other might argue that the shows do a good job, but that isn't the point. The shows are obviously trying to influence public policy. Do we need to assign Federal Election Commission's lawyers to watch hours of television programming just to ensure that no political candidates benefit from the message in these shows? “

The point is that McCain-Feingold (aka "The Incumbent Protection/Reelection Act") is censorship and it is a great thing that SCOTUS bitch-slapped it.

[Kristy]

Bullshit. What "proof" does he has these shows are trying to influence anything? What's he basing his facts on? Exploit, yes. But influence? It's bad enough we already have groups like The Christian Coalition of America who are doing these lawyers jobs for them and seem to laud that pseudo-journo slug fest known as Fox News as they ban movies like 'Saving Private Ryan' because its not a "too graphic" for prime-time. And it was the Fox Network who developed the series 'Cops' you short-sighted moron. So it's okay to show the poor and uninsured being arrested but wrong to see them complaining on not having health care on the lame-ass possibility that they are "obviously" influencing public policy? This douche didn't bitch-slap shit.

[Nickdfresh]

The suit was about the release of the Hillary movie being prevented by the FCC from being shown. The justices were asking if it applied to a movie, could it be applied to other kinds of media, like a book - and the Govt. lawyer said yes.

The "film" was essentially libelous shit that was to be aired at critical points and was little more than a corporate-financed hit job and a giant negative campaign ad (or infomercial) on behalf of her opponent...

The law has never been applied to anything but two hour commercials...

[Nickdfresh]

...

A stupid law like McCain-Feingold, if closely implemented by a non Left-Wing administration could find all manner of advocacy in regular television programming. The author said;
...


You mean like Rush Limbaugh? Gee, how'd he manage to survive that liberal tyranny of the McCain-Feingold law?

It's a completely horseshit, red herring argument. Most media generally steers clear of "offending" partisan sensibilities in order to keep ratings in everyday entertainment programming. And there is a difference between journalism and and productions that are little more than 60 or 120 minute negative campaign adds based on distored, false, or out of context information...

But by all means find us an example...

[Sgt Schultz]

Kristy, your Fox/Hate-addled brain must be preventing your comprehension. SCOTUS bitch slapped the law, not the writer of the article. Maybe try a third time to actually read the article and realize it really isn't about FOX tv shows like COPS.

Nick, yes, it IS about the Hillary movie, that's who brought the suit. To not discuss it as part of this subject doesn't make a lot of sense. Rush Limbaugh...??WTF does his show have to do with this SCOTUS ruling?

:pullinghair:

[Nickdfresh]

Kristy, your Fox/Hate-addled brain must be preventing your comprehension. SCOTUS bitch slapped the law, not the writer of the article. Maybe try a third time to actually read the article and realize it really isn't about FOX tv shows like COPS.

Nick, yes, it IS about the Hillary movie, that's who brought the suit. To not discuss it as part of this subject doesn't make a lot of sense. Rush Limbaugh...??WTF does his show have to do with this SCOTUS ruling?

:pullinghair:

It has to do with the law having no effect on freedom of speech by political partisans...

[Nitro Express]

We will be so blasted by political campaign ads they will lose their effect due to over saturation. When you swim in something constantly and too long, you just ignore it's there. Much like how a prisoner copes with the horrible prison, he turns it off in his mind to cope.

[FORD]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-YB68VR0LfI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-YB68VR0LfI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Seshmeister]

We will be so blasted by political campaign ads they will lose their effect due to over saturation. When you swim in something constantly and too long, you just ignore it's there. Much like how a prisoner copes with the horrible prison, he turns it off in his mind to cope.

Dude they managed to convince the American population that the share prices of insurance companies were more important than their friends and relatives needlessly dying from a lack of healthcare.

I think that proves categorically that like it or not money is everything in US politics. Give it time and the Chinese will be choosing your presidents and you won't even notice.