Breaking: Supreme Court Opens The Floodgates
Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, perhaps we might want to keep our eye on the ball.
The long-awaited 5-4 ruling, in the Citizens United v. FEC case, presents advocates of regulation with a major challenge in limiting the flow of corporate money into campaigns, and potentially opens the door for unrestricted amounts of corporate money to flow into American politics.
In the case at issue, Citizens United (CU), a conservative advocacy group, was challenging a ruling by the FEC that barred it from airing a negative movie about Hillary Clinton. CU received corporate donations and the movie advocated the defeat of a political candidate within 60 days of an election. CU argued that the FEC ruling violated its freedom of speech, and that the relevant provision of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional.
This doesn’t bode well.
Tags: Campaign Finance, Supreme Court
A bunch of partisan hacks.
Sorry for the vituperation.
Thanks again, Ralph.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/its-2000-again-and-were-florida
Goddamn John, that is a great piece. And I just became more pissed off at Jane Hamsher and A1 because of it. How many Nader voters enjoyed the darkness that was the Bush presidency? Well brace yourselves, assholes, you are about to reap what you have sown. And it may be another 15 years before you have another chance to get any healthcare reform. Thanks.
Worse, they based the ruling on free speech rights, so I don’t know if this can even be fixed with legislation.
That New Republic piece hits a nerve. We’re exhausted and we want to fold the tent. Same as 2000. If that is true, what a bunch of wusses we are.
Mixed feelings on this one.
I don’t think corporations have constitutional Rights.
I do like the fact that the “black-out” period before elections was struck down.
What does it mean? Corp interests tend to favor the GOP. Looks like the dems are going to face an even bigger obstacle in the midterms.
Bill Clinton lost HCR and the whole Congress, and still led us to two terms of peace and prosperity and record approval ratings. Now we lose one Senator and we flip out… WTF?
But if Obama wants to repeat the Clinton comeback he needs to do some of the things that Clinton did. Clinton delivered progressive victories in his first term and kept the base. Also on Day One Clinton entered office saying he was going to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy. Obama has done neither of these things.
And it was in fact the economic recovery that won Clinton re-election. If Clinton had not been re-elected, today’s Supreme Court decision might have been unanimous.
Corporations help elect presidents and Congress –> president and Congress elected by corporations bail them out –> corporations have more money –> president appoints court members who support corporations –> corporations have more money AND are allowed to spend more to elect politicians –> American PEOPLE scratch heads
I do miss the Progressive Era.
Great headline from Fark.com:
“Supreme Court rejects judicial activism, ruggedly overturns 100 years established law in favor of plaintiffs who were litigating on a completely different question”
Brilliant – and sad but true.
Well, I wonder if stockholders will see ANY money from corporations, now.
x
Mr. Populist
• “Sen. Barack Obama reversed his pledge to seek public financing in the general election yesterday, a move that drew criticism from adversaries and allies alike but could provide him with a significant spending advantage over Republican rival John McCain. Obama will become the first major-party presidential nominee to reject the public funds.”–Washington Post, June 20, 2008
• “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. . . . Obama called it a big victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.”–Associated Press, Jan. 21, 2010
Yes, genius, Obama agreed to permit millions of individuals to make small contributions to his campaign – none greater than $1,000, none from corporations, none from PAC’s, none from unions.
It was a fully-grown version of McGovern’s Million Member Club, which financed his 1972 with a flood of small donations, while Nixon was taking illegal checks that led to guilty pleas and jail sentences.
This is the worst decision since Bush v. Gore, possibly worse:
http://www.samefacts.com/2010/01/corruption-in-washington/citizens-united-for-subservience-to-tyrants/
Thanks, Ralph
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Can a tea bagger, a conservative or a constitutionalist show me the part of the Constitution where corporations are people? I mean, I’m confused. I thought conservatives on the SC were supposed to abide by original intent? I thought they weren’t supposed to be “activist” judges? I thought they weren’t supposed to override previous precedent? I thought they weren’t supposed to put their ideology in rulings but instead were to abide by the Constitution?
These aren’t good days to be a democrat. Barrack Obama has been a complete disaster as President. In retrospect, Hilary Clinton was the better choice. We nominated a novice with no particular set of values and are paying a very steep price. The Clinton’s would have gotten health care done by now and it would have been a better bill than what was passed by either the house or senate. Eleven months of bickering by democrats turned public opinion against one of the most important issues facing the country. Only a political novice would have allowed that to happen. Hell, even Bush would have known better. But not Obama.
But I digress. The Supreme Court decision opens a door for the democrats to again define republicans as opposed to the interests of ordinary Americans and on the side of big business. A Constitutional amendment outlawing corporations as people is a great place to start.
And the next Supreme Court nominee should get a few questions like:
Do you believe a corporation is a person?
Al Franken: Can you direct me to the part of the Constitution where it says corporations are people?
Do you believe in an activist supreme court where corporations are protected as if they were a person?
A radio show I was listening to this morning described the majority as the Supreme Court repulicans of the United States. or SCROTUS.
also most people arguing for corporate personhood are citing a single case (Santa Clara v. Souther Pacific Railroad, 1886). The reference actually isn’t in the holding but in a single sentence in the headnote preceeding the case. Headnotes are summaries of the ruling written by a law clerk (not a judge), and as recently described to me in my Law School 101 class NOT ACTUAL LAW that should not be cited in our homework (let alone a supreme court ruling).
This is one of the most dangerous decisions by the Supreme Court. Since when do corporations, who can’t vote, have the right to use free speech (money) to drown out the voice of the people? By backing or attacking candidates at will, their “free speech” ads can undermine the will of the people. When I announced for Congress I warned that we need to redefine politics because the government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ is really a government of the people, by the lobbyists for the corporations. “Citizens United” and the Supreme Court “case” is nothing more than a calculated corporate and political tactic to undermine democrats.
heh SCROTUS… nice V
Amen MR Spencer. Could you possibly pull out of the congressional race and run against Castle? We don’t seem to have a democrat willing to yet. You’d get my vote/volunteer hours.
I mean, by all mean, beat Machine Man Carney… but we are about to surrender another senate seat without any kind of a fight in addition to the ones we are going to lose in Nevada, Nebraska, and possibly PA if Sestak cant take out Specter in the primary.
Let’s find out what Beau decides first.
I like that answer. Senator Scott Spencer…. kinda has a nice ring to it.
Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is “Free Speech”
(Gallup Poll)
Gallup ^ | 01/22/10 | Lydia Saad
Americans’ broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right. The free-speech question elicits uncommon agreement across party lines. More than 6 in 10 Republicans and Democrats believe…
I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. American sovereignty is overrated.
“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
President Thomas Jefferson, writing to Secretary of the Treasury
Feel free to stop taxing whomever you wish to disenfranchise.
If you take their money, don’t complain about other places they might choose to spend it.
I’m with Grabass. I welcome our corporate overlords (provided they are not Belgian (SUCK IT BELGIUM!)). Anyway, I’m sure multinational corporations they will treat us with the respect afforded to most serfs.
Bet the conservatives can’t wait for Citgo to start flooding the airways with ads. Wonder if those freaking out over Dubai and our ports are feeling all warm and fuzzy.
When people defending corporations think about the ramifications of this, I suggest they think globally.
“Grabass”
About what I’ve come to expect of you, Jason.
BTW, we shook hands in the last two weeks.
1. Try to remember where that might have been.
2. See if you can guess who I am.
3. Guess what I did to my hand just before we shook.
You don’t get it. I’m with you on this. What could possibly go wrong?
Since most of the writers on this blog support direct government extortion of money from its citizens solely to fill the pockets of private “moneyed incorporations” (under the Owellian name of “HCR”), I think that we’re pretty much at the place Jefferson predicted.
*yawn*
God, you’re tiresome. How about I paint you, A1, as being a person fighting to keep health insurance companies right to kill people. Because I can, but it wouldn’t be a fair description.
Pandora is right. I love me some a1, but you have to raise your game.
pandora, if I supported a bill that truly gave “health insurance companies right to kill people”, that would be a fair description. Nothing I just wrote about the Senate HCR bill is untrue.
Just like nothing you write about my, and other contributors, position is true, either. But don’t let that point confuse you.
Jason, tell me how A1 can raise his game. What is the plan for raising his game? Spell it out for me, including the votes. I’m waiting.
“Mixed feelings on this one.” Good stuff from Kaveman. I think some small part of him sees the downstream implications of this. One little correction: “Corp interests tend to favor the GOP.” False. Corporate interest favors corporations. Multinational corporations depend on dumb middle class Republicans to imagine that their interests overlap with the interests of Dubai based corporations.
Nah. It is more of a gut thing than anything I’ve given much thought to. Sometimes you just know when somebody needs to raise their game.
“Mixed feelings on this one.” Good stuff from Kaveman. I think some small part of him sees the downstream implications of this”
maybe soon his brain will develop to the point he stop being afraid of the wind….. develop tools… shit, he may even invent a wheel or something
Well according to the new rules if you don’t have a plan to raise his game, that means you are in favor of his current game.
Whatie… whodie?
A1 has been told repeatedly here that since he doesn’t have a plan with a +60 whip count, that means he is in favor of the status quo. I disagree with this, and anyway it is a lazy argument. But it is becoming the standard retort to A1.
I think Obama needs to raise his game. Watch him throw elbows in the Senate to get Bernanke through. If he had done that for the public option, Dems would up by ten or twelve instead of down at the half. And yes it is the half; if things don’t turn around now 2011-12 will be the lame duck sessions.
I guess Plan B is to let Bernanke withdraw and put in a Goldman Sachs man.
pandora, good dodge. Most DL writers support passing the Senate “HCR” bill. That’s a fact. The bill directs government extortion of money from its citizens solely to fill the pockets of private insurance companies. That is also a fact.
Saying that “nothing you write about my, and other contributors, position is true” is just blatantly untrue. Trying to change the subject won’t change the facts.
jason, like it or not, the facts about this Orwellian “HCR” bill can’t be mentioned often enough, until it is dead and buried. Sorry you don’t like it, though.
That’s my game plan and I’m stickin’ to it.
This thread wasn’t even about that bro. You needed to make it all about your grievances. That’s the sign of somebody who is tiresome and needs to raise their game.
This thread wasn’t even about that bro. You needed to make it all about your grievances.
J – A1 was on topic by relating HCR to the SCROTUS ruling (although with an unfortunate generalized dig at “DL writers.” Pandora replied with an ad hominem, and then they were off to the races.
HCR is the elephant in the room, and it is going to creep into most threads for a while, so better get used to it. HCR is on topic in just about every Dem conversation right now.
I was commenting on cassandra_m’s excellent Jefferson quote. But, in hindsight, the shot at the DL supporters of the Senate HCR bill was not relevant to the thread, other than to point out the inconsistency of supporting the Senate HCR bill while at the same time lamenting the “end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution” because of the SCOTUS decision.
p.s. Jason – read the second comment on this thread. And I did not support or vote for Nader.
This is tiresome, but allow me to hijack my thread one last time – then I have to catch a train to DC. Not kidding.
Here’s the argument. A1 and anon think we can kill the HCR bill and then get something better. I, and others, think we can pass the bill and then get something better. Neither side has a way of proving the we can get something better.
Where I’m coming from is based on the momentum of a perceived “win” and the fact that once people view health care as a right there is a push (see Canada, France, Sweden, etc.) to improve it, but not kill it.
I won’t presume to lay out their case for killing the bill and starting over.
What I will point out, and what I don’t have either, is the will of the congress.
Both sides are rolling the dice.
The Senate bill is a win only for conservadems and insurance and pharma. We cannot afford such a victory.
To make the Senate bill better we would have to first repeal the individual mandate and the private subsidies. If the Senate bill is passed, any improvement effort would already be starting in the hole. We need to stop digging now.
The only thing that makes the individual mandate palatable is if it works together with a public option.
We also need unicorns to fly out of my ass and rainbows and cotton candy.
The Senate bill is a win only for conservadems and insurance and pharma. We cannot afford such a victory.
And… I’m not buying that we can spin passage of the Senate bill as a win for Democrats. I don’t think people will buy that. That will fail as a Dem narrative for 2010.
Most people believe the Senate bill is a government takeover of health care. We are going to fight that narrative anyway.
Politically Medicare is a better vehicle for HCR. Make ’em attack Medicare.
Either the Senate of the House HCR is a win for people who want insurance coverage and who do not have it nw or who are priced out of it.
A1 and anon don’t think that these people do not exist and have never proven their case on this. They just get their paternalistic BS on to make sure that 30M people (which includes a whole bunch of people who will die because they do not have insurance) have no shot at the insurance that these two certainly provide their own families. But let them eat cake, right? They also don’t care about the fact that those of us with insurance (and the employers who provide it) are facing rising costs — not the least of which is due to the costs of treating the uninsured and the donwsizing of the pool of people covered by insurance. But none of that matters as long as insurance companies — the same insurance companies that cover their own families — get hurt.
Frankly I don’t know who to be more embarrased by — the Democrats (including some of the “progressive” icons) who ran for the hills this week or by these so-called “progressives” who have crafted this utterly stupid (and utterly uninteresting) Messiah narrative for Obama. 60 votes or a way to eliminate the 60 votes deal is on order guys. Just whinging that you Messiah won’t act like one gets you no where.
And — For The Record — this thread is about the Supreme Court ruling that corporations can openly buy and sell your government. This is not about HCR — there are plenty of threads for that. You are officially warned to get back on topic here.
pandora, respectfully, you are missing a key part of our argument against this bill and that is that it makes the country worse-off than the status quo.
So, it isn’t just “kill it and get something better;” it is kill it, regardless, because this bill is bad for America and Americans. Forcing Americans to pay into the coffers of private corporations is astoundingly and utterly un-American. And the majority of Americans, who desperately want healthcare reform, understand that and don’t want this bill either.
Jefferson was right, and the Senate HCR bill combined with the SCOTUS decision and the Bush legacy no being carried on by Obomba show how we have come to the “end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution.”
Second Warning.
You are officially warned to get back on topic here.
I’m out. I kept it civil, but it wasn’t appreciated. Too toxic here for me.
Threadjacking isn’t especially civil anyplace. There are lots of HCR threads and no real reason to try to relitigate that here. Just because HCR is the only thing that interests you does not mean that there are not others who would like to deal with other topics.
I certainly care about people being unable to afford healthcare, cassandra_m. I also know that this bill doesn’t fix that problem as I and other have pointed out countless time in other threads. This bill is about forcing people to purchase insurance. It does nothing to bring down the costs of actual healthcare or address the fact that many people won’t be able to afford the high co-pays or the cost of drugs after they have paid for the insurance executives million dollar bonuses and corporate jets.
This bill is as much about HCR as the invasion of Iraq was about WMD. It is a pure sell-out to the insurance and drug companies, and is only indicative of the battles we’ll continue to face in light of the SCOTUS decision and lack of public campaign financing.
I have discussed the SCOTUS decision in each of my posts. And read the second post by LG in this thread before you accuse me of hijacking it.
Comment by cassandra_m on 23 January 2010 at 1:44 pm:
Either the Senate of the House HCR is a win for people who want insurance coverage and who do not have it nw or who are priced out of it.
Comment by cassandra_m on 23 January 2010 at 1:56 pm:
Threadjacking isn’t especially civil anyplace.
hello pot, hello kettle
would it be off topic to compare Obama’s backroom deal with PHARMA to spend $80 million promoting HCR to the SCOTUS decision and corporate funding of campaigns?
or to wonder, now that Obama has taken over GM & Chrysler… where their campaign contributions will go?
Don’t worry Lizard. I’m sure our corporate masters will have our best interest at heart.
While A1 is diddling that “it makes the country worse-off than the status quo,” real people suffer:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/one_readers_sob-story.php#more?ref=fpblg
Back atcha, John:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/23/mds-sob-story/
FDL’s lost credibility more quickly than Henry A. Wallace:
http://mydd.com/2010/1/22/whats-the-point
Sure, John. I mean Liberal Geek believes Jane Hamsher is responsible for Obama’s “F’ed up” presidency, so I am sure that Marcy Wheeler must also be partially responsible.
If it were not for Democrats, Republicans would not stand a chance in hell of being elected.
Were it not for corporations, neither of them would.
Third and last warning, gentlemen.
There is a topic here — get back on it or move to the right thread.