Citizens United tried, in the District Court, to make this a ‘facial test’ and, basically, were laughed at. So they dropped the facial challenge and brought it to the Supremes as an ‘as applied’ challenge (‘facial challenge’ is legalese for “it’s just wrong” whereas ‘as applied’ is legalese for “you’re doing it wrong”… whether or no it’s wrong in and of itself…) Without so much as being prompted to, the Five Whores of the Apocalypse, resurrected this ‘facial challenge’ argument, ignoring all the others, and used it to overturn Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce a law which previous Supremes upheld for over two decades and which the appellants (Citizens United) didn’t so much as even mention in their briefs!!
To put it frankly: this is the return of the revenge of the son of Bush v Gore; that is to say, hard right judicial activism of the worst sort. They merely plucked the law closest to the case that they didn’t like and declared it facially wrong all the while raising some bogeyman of ‘censorship’ against corporations… whatever the f#@! that means…
In his confirmation hearings John Roberts said the following:
“My job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.’
Nice sentiment Mr Chief Justice… only you didn’t simply mistake a ball for a strike here, or a strike for a ball… You called a home run, between innings, when neither the pitcher, batter nor the catcher were anywhere near their respective positions. Nice job that. Tell me something… you have problems successfully tying your shoes? ‘Cause ‘logic’ of this sort leaves me questioning your basic motor skills. Hows about we hire someone to come over there an water you 5 potted dumbasses a coupla times a week? Sounds like you need it. Oh, and next time you see Kennedy going to pick his nose, stop him. He’s obviously not competent to commit such complex actions: probably been damaging hisself egregiously doing it heretofore…
could fix, slow down or mitigate this travesty? The amendment some are talking up would take way too long and, meanwhile, most of Congress would have become wholly owned subsidiaries of corporations. It would be almost impossible to get 2/3rds of the vote now, never mind after big oil, big media, big insurance, big finance, etc. have purchased their own Senators and Congressmen.
<
p>On the Rachel Maddow Show, I heard Barney Frank say that his House Finance Committee has control of the laws guiding corporations and has the power to regulate their behavior. He said the committee was planning to work with the Obama administration and the SEC to restrict the effects of this ruling by statute. This sounded promising.
<
p>Then there’s Alan Grayson’s proposed legislation:
<
p>Since time is of the essence, I was wondering about a couple of other fast-track possibilities: (1) Re-introducing the Fairness Doctrine and (2) using taxes on corporate political expenditures to radically increase funding for public broadcasting and local access cable while limiting other contributions to PBS and NPR to individuals, non-profit corporations and foundations.
<
p>Thanks for your post. This is the most ominous SC decision since Bush v. Gore.
Just how much money they can spend to help/hurt a candidate.
<
p>If we are going to fix this problem then let’s also stop “individuals” from giving millions. While there is a limit of $2,400 to any one candidate per election, there is no limit to how much money an individual can spend to defeat a candidate. So Robert Kraft or George Soros can spend millions of their own money to run ads… I think this is just as wrong as corporations doing it. I would support both entities being limited on their spend.
12 wealthy individuals got Eugene McCarthy going in the 1968 presidential race. While I couldn’t disagree more with his policies, his inclusion into th4e political mix was a good thing. Without those benefactors, he’d be a political footnote from Minnesota.
<
p>Contrast to the current environment, with contribution caps: 98% incumbency. Is that a good think? I say no.
<
p>Let’s remove all individual contribution caps, and prohibit all other contributions — corporate, PACs, unions, 529s, etc.
<
p>As long as there’s full disclosure, I have no problem with that. Unlimited contributions would encourage new political ideas. If Barbra Streisand wants to give Ed Markey $20 million to run for president, as long as that’s disclosed (real time internet) I feel I’m capable of discerning how that money would affect Markey’s behavior.
<
p>But without Barbra’s support, he’d NEVER be able to run for president. Not that I’d ever vote for him, but again, the body politic benefits when it has more political ideas to choose from.
<
p>I seriously doubt it. In fact, the combined effect of Citizens United is to to make is less likely that incumbents will lose — something unlimited contributions would make even worse. Corporations will simply give more money to incumbents, because that is the safest way to ensure some payoff for their money (chiefly, access to the Rep/Senator). The gap between incumbent and challenger fundraising will grow even larger as a result of these changes, for both Republicans and Democrats.
<
p>I really don’t understand why most conservatives applaud this decision. In addition to its incumbent-boosting effects, it will lead to more corporate rent-seeking (i.e. seeking government goodies to squash smaller businesses and stifle competition).
Don’t like it!
The New York Times tells a scary back story about the long campaign to destoy campaign finance reform. And James Bopp, Citizens United’s attorney and the force behind their test case, is not stopping with this ruling. He is also behind the next campaign finance related case on the SC docket that pits disclosure of contributors against “privacy rights.”
<
p>
<
p>Thanks to Land Shark on Democratic Underground.