Traitor Joe LIEberman, the senator from Aetna, may become the template for all future politicians. Meet Majority Leader LIEberman and Minority Leader LIEberman. Say hello to the chair of all committees, LIEberman. What a disgusting thought!
The Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back campaign finance restrictions that were meant to limit corporate and union influence on elections. The decision potentially unleashes a flood of corporate cash during elections, threatens state limits in Wisconsin and elsewhere and strikes down part of the McCain-Feingold law that bans certain issue ads in the days before an election.
Writing for the majority in the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that Congress cannot choose an "unconstitutional remedy" to curtail "improper influences from independent expenditures."
"It is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule," he wrote. "An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical pre-election period is not a permissible remedy."
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissent for the minority.
"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation," he wrote.
The court's ruling on Citizens United v. FEC has been highly anticipated by political operatives, unions, corporations and advocates on both sides of the debate over campaign finance reform.
Supporters of campaign finance limits criticized the ruling, predicting that the decision would diminish the average citizen's influence in elections.
"This is the Supreme Court run amok," said Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, who vowed to begin working with colleagues to pass legislation restoring restraints on "corporate control of our elections."
"Corporations and unions now will be able to buy up all the television time and block average citizens and potentially even candidates to get the message out," he said. "It could have a very, very negative impact on the system."
But Feingold noted that the decision does not affect his measure's soft money ban, which prevents companies from making political donations to political parties.
Critics of stricter limits welcomed the decision, arguing that limits amounted to unconstitutional restraints on free speech. The ruling boosted the idea that the government can't regulate speech based on who is making the statements, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former Federal Elections Commission member.
"I think this is a terrific decision because it restores parts of the First Amendment that were stolen by a very bad law that set up the FEC as a censor," he said.
Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and former FEC chairman, said the decision would lead to more ads.
"Speech is important and this will be good in allowing union and corporations to speak," he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy in the majority opinion. Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, joined Stevens as well as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in the dissent… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <JSOnline>
Needless to say, Republicans goose-stepped for glee:
– Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “It is about a nonprofit group’s ability to speak about the public issue. I can’t think of a more fundamental First Amendment issue. … [The ruling could] open up resources that have not previously been available [for Republicans].”...
– Rep. Steve King (R-IA): “The Constitution protects the rights of citizens and employers to express their viewpoints on political issues. Today’s Supreme Court decision affirms the Bill of Rights and is a victory for liberty and free speech.”...
– Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): “If the freedom of speech means anything, it means protecting the right of private citizens to voice opposition or support for their elected representatives. The fact that the Court overturned a 20-year precedent speaks volumes about the importance of this issue.”...
– Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The court took a step toward “restoring the First Amendment rights [of corporations and unions]. … By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers.”...
– RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, serves as an affirmation of the constitutional rights provided to Americans under the first amendment. Free speech strengthens our democracy.”...
– Senate Candidate Marco Rubio: “Today’s SCOTUS decision on McCain-Feingold is a victory for free speech.”...
Inserted from <Alternet>
I cannot help being shocked by the irony that this should come down on the day that Obama demonstrated that he actually has a pair. Rachel Maddow discusses bankster regulation with my choice for Secretary of the Treasury.
Did you notice how Warren said that bib banks captured the regulatory agencies? What better examples could there be than Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke?
When it comes to taking an issue and stripping it bare, nobody does so like Keith Olbermann. Here is his special comment:
See? You’ll get used to all those Senators named LIEberman, because if you’re dog catcher is elected, his name will be LIEberman too.
Now you’re probably asking me what can be done. I’m not sure yet. This is going to take a lot more research. Corporations are not people. SCOTUS erred in giving them personhood over 100 hears ago. When John Roberts was concerned, he spoke of Judicial Restraint. The pig lied. This is the exact opposite. It is extreme judicial activism. The obvious solution is to change the makeup of the Supreme Court. That’s tough, because the new reactionary GOP correctly decided that they could goose-step with far greater ease by appointing young Justices. Roberts (Bush2) is 57. Scalia (Reagan) is 73. Kennedy (Reagan) is 73. Thomas (Bush1) is 61. Alito (Bush2) is 56. On our side, they are older. Stevens (Ford) is 89. Ginsburg (Clinton) is 76. Breyer (Clinton) is 56. Sotomayor (Obama) is 55. The first two justices likely to retire are Stevens and Ginsburg. If the GOP replaces either, the country is forever lost. To tip the court back, a Democrat who is not a complete corporate toady will have to replace the next three justices. Congress could increase the number of Justices from nine to eleven, but that is not likely to survive a filibuster from the GOP and LIEberman. So we will have to overcome all that corporate money from the grass roots up.
I did find one thing to offer you, though. I found a website dedicated to curtailing corporate power. They have a ton of useful information. I’ll be going back to to peruse them in more detail and I recommend that you do too. They are: ReclaimDemocracy.org