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.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
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:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
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
15 comments:
It's ridiculous to think Unions could raise enough money to offset the huge amounts corporate interests could pour into campaigns for their whores.
This Fall is going to be a carnival of lies and right wing spin. With no respite.
The first and foremost way at this moment to fight is as an individual.
Withdraw from them as much of the weapon they have of yours that is to be used against you. Your money. Take it out of the markets and put it in a bank that charges no fees for holding your wealth, and let it sit there.
Do not spend on wants but only on needs and do spend locally with small business as much as possible.Does your kid really need another video game or you a designer pair of shoes?
Default on all unsecured credit debt, through bankruptcy (chapter 7) or simply refusing to pay if they change the rules with higher interest rates and hidden fees.
You have no moral obligation to debt that was foisted on you with certain seduction into economic slavery. Fuck worrying about your credit score anymore because you can no longer afford credit anyway.
Walk away from a mortgage that was fraudulently given to enslave you and enrich them and their puppets who sold it to you. Corporations walk out on property all the time when it becomes more profitable to default than it is to pay. We will witness this, this year when the commercial real estate market collapses like the housing market is still doing.
A corporation needs you to spend in order for them to profit and if you stop spending with these entities then you cause them to raise the rates of the services to them who will not stop spending with them and soon enough they will be priced out of the market.
What surprises me is that so few people really expected this to come down any other way.
What does a supreme court unjustice do on their off time? Go fishing or hit the speaking circuit eh? Paid how much per appearance in front of what groups? If being paid X amount to appear and speak is not a back door lobbying effort then my name is Sally and I wear mini skirts.
The rub is how willing are you as an individual to push personal power? Are you willing to live without and fight? If not then just take it and adjust to the new reality that you are a slave to the capricious whims of the uber wealthy who only look at you as a mechanism to their own wealth..
It's time to talk Elizabeth Warren into taking a Sabbatical from her day job and move into a Government job of real influence and power, she stands out because of the common sense and understanding she has of how economics have changed American family life. The TARP oversight job should be just the beginning for the meaningful contributions she would make. Her insight on the Rachel Maddow clip you show, confirms this.
Truth, I can't argue with that, not that I would want to do so. It will be zoo time.
Mark, I'm an old hand at doing without, albeit not by choice. Our only Community Bank, though, was taken over by Banksters.
Holte, I fully agree. I'd love it if she were Proctologist in Chief for banksters.
My recent horror story about 2017 is no longer fiction. Keith Olbermann summed it up perfectly. Democracy is dead, having now been legally replaced by a cemented-in plutocracy. I cannot support this.
I am - WE ARE - now American Dissidents!
A landmark Supreme Court decision -- and you can take that to the bank.
Of course, now you'll have to ....
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/freedom-of-speech-2010/
I find the quotes in this post by those on Capitol Hill interesting.
By and large they all find a way to take that 1st Amendment individual right and include employers and corporate entities as being intended recipients.
So all that founding fathers crap they are forever invoking is sacred ONLY if it furthers their interests.
the walking man makes some good points - we need to spend money judiciously and locally. It is our responsibility to keep our money out of the hands of the entities that wish to enslave us.
That's awful.
Even in what has almost become neoCanada, we have restrictions on corporate donations and air time.
I think Mr. Obama will have better luck on reining in the bankers.
He might say in the next election,
Roses are red
Violets are blue
If you don't vote for me
You'll end up with Big Two
(or three, or four?)
--Bankers Too Big to Fail.
If this doesn't get fixed, then I'm 100% for secession. I don't care to live in a corporate dictatorship; what we have now is plenty close enough for me.
What everyone else said. This is a horrid ruling and ensure that our politicians are even more bought off, as if that were possible.
I completely agree with Truth101. These GOPpers prattling on about unions, whom they HATE, having more airtime, yadda yadda, are full of it. Free speech applies to humans. Not to paper entities which exist for the sole purpose of providing profits to shareholders.
TomCat, I like your style :) Mind if I blogroll you?
Not only do the unions not have the money the corps have, their membership dropped %10 this past year due to the economy.
Most charitable and educational non-profits sure as hell don't have money.
If I give up anymore, Ill have to run around naked and that would be a scarey sight to behold.
I DEMAND TO SEE THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATES! If they're not born in the USA, they're not citizens and have no rights.
Now, isn't that what the right-wingers say about immigrants?
its not just your national races you have to think about...can you imagine a local politican going up against a big corp now? how about a local elected judge?...now, more than ever, "he whos got the gold makes the rules"...just the threat of big money in the next campaign keeps them all in line...its game over as you knew america...as ive said before, if you still believe in this system, you are either insane or just dumb lucky...
Jack, I'm afraid that indeed we are.
Welcome Mike. Now we don't have to take it to the bank. They can come and get us.
Welcome Rocky. The GOP is expert at rewriting history to say that their stance of the moment has always been so. Remember the nuclear option?
Ivan, Obama's only chance at a second term is to become so popular that most Americans see through the corporate advertising onslaught to come.
JR, wouldn't we make fine Canucks? ;-)
That's it, Lisa.
Welcome, Bee. I fully agree. Corporations are NOT people. I'd happily sacrifice advertising by unions to kill corporate advertising. Thank you! I added you as well, but your RSS feed appears messed up, so it won't update. Holler when it's fixed, and I'll try again.
Tnlib, I hear you. We may be doing a tandem-streak.
Salient point, Marva.
I agree, RJ. That's why I said that elected dog catchers will be LIEbermans too.
AP, a long time ago, you were not right... yet.
Post a Comment