It's difficult to look beyond the tumult of current events and ask, "what happened this year that will be remembered ten, twenty, or fifty years from now?" However, there was one 2010 event that, in terms of its long-term impact, loomed above the others, the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court Decision.
Writing in the New York Review, law professor Ronald Dworkin explained Citizens United v. FEC: "In the 2008 presidential primary season a small corporation, Citizens United, financed to a minor extent by corporate contributions, tried to broadcast a derogatory movie about Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared the broadcast illegal under the BCRA [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]. Citizens United then asked the Supreme Court to declare it exempt from that statute on the ground, among others, that it proposed to broadcast its movie only on a pay-per-view channel." In an extraordinary example of judicial activism, the Supreme Court conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, declared the entire BCRA act unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court hadn't been the story of the year since the December 12, 2000, Bush v. Gore decision. This paved the way for Bush's installation as president and his nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice in September of 2005. Many Supreme Court observers regard Roberts as the judicial equivalent of the "Manchurian Candidate." New Yorker legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted Roberts' dogmatic conservatism: "In every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts [and his conservative allies] has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff."
John Roberts had worked as an attorney for both the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and, therefore, possible conservative "judicial activism" was a concern of the Democratic Senators who questioned him before confirmation. Roberts denied that he was an activist and appeared to honor the legal tradition of stare decisis, abiding by precedent. Five years later, it's apparent that Roberts hid his true philosophy.
In the Citizens United decision Roberts aggressively advanced the conservative agenda along three fronts. First, the decision to hear this case was an extraordinary example of judicial activism. Professor Dworkin observed, Citizens United "did not challenge the constitutionality of [BCRA]. But the five conservative justices -- Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas -- decided on their own initiative, after a rehearing they themselves called for, that they wanted to declare the act unconstitutional anyway." [Emphasis added] Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, explained that the conservative justices called for the rehearing because they had dissented on the most pertinent precedent, McConnell v. FEC, and had continued to complain about it.
Second, the Citizens United decision strengthened the conservative contention that corporations have "personhood" and, therefore, enjoy the same rights as ordinary individuals, including the right of free speech. (For a compelling account of how the bizarre notion that corporations enjoy the same constitutional rights as human beings has evolved, see radio host Thom Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection.)
Third, the Citizens United decision allowed corporations to spend unlimited funds in political contests. It was this aspect that caused President Obama to observe, during his January 27, 2010, State of the Union Address, "The Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations - -to spend without limit in our elections." The decision granted corporations more rights than those of human beings.
The 2010 midterm elections demonstrated the lethality of the Citizens United decision. The non-partisan group, Opensecrets.org calculated that, excluding Party Committees, $294 million was spent by outside groups. Conservative outside groups spent twice as much as did Liberal groups. For example, the US Chamber of Commerce, a conservative-leaning outside group, spent $32.8 million, more than the combined total of the two leading Liberal groups: the SEIU ($15.7 million) and the AFSCME ($12.6). (The McClatchey Newspapers reported that the US Chamber, which has foreign corporations as members, expected to spend more than $75 million in all forms of political support.)
Massive spending by outside groups influenced the outcome of the midterm election. In the Pennsylvania Senate race, outside spending was more than $12 million: $5.9 million was spent on ads attacking the Democratic Candidate (Joe Sestak), whereas only $1.9 was spent attacking the Republican (Pat Toomey); Sestak lost. In Illinois, $6.2 million was spent attacking the Democratic candidate (Alex Giannoulias), whereas only $1.5 million was spent attacking the Republican (Mark Kirk); Giannoulias lost. There are many similar examples, including outgoing New York Democratic Congressman John Hall who attributed his defeat to the
We've entered a new phase of American history, the Corporatist period where multinational corporations have unbridled political influence. This movement started before the Citizens United decision, but the Roberts' Supreme Court has accelerated the pace and thereby profoundly weakened our democracy.
Every American Citizen should realize just how serious these non-publicized aspects of the case are:
In Citizens United, the Roberts court circumvented our entire mechanism for evaluating constitutionally related cases and, in effect, created a five person dictatorship, albeit a particularly inefficient one, as dictatorships go.
Let me explain.
Some facts first: Chief Justice Roberts "invited" the Citizens United case - it was not being appealed because it appeared to the litigants to be well-settled law. That is, it was a closed case and Justice Roberts re-opened the case. The litigants brought their case and then, when plaintiff and defendant had their say, the court went off to decide it. In their decision, the majority cited two previous precedents that they were overturning, and neither of those two precedents was in any way related to anything the plaintiff or defendant had argued.
Nobody disputes any of this.
Justice Stevens, in his dissent pointed out that the Roberts court had deprived the losing side of "due process" - a 14th amendment provision - when it overturned these two precedents precisely because these points had not been argued by either side and thus there had been no rebuttal, no opportunity for amicus briefs, etc. He also pointed out that the court abrogated the Article III cases v. controversies rule, which has never been challenged, that holds courts (all our courts) can only decide actual cases.
(end part 1)
It's important to understand what the cases v controversies rule is all about - and this applies to ALL our courts, not just the Supreme Court: It says that the court can't itself create a case, it may only arbitrate pre-existing cases brought to the court and may only consider the narrow points of law raised in those cases - in making the argument for one side or the other, the Robert's court, in effect, created the case it wanted to decide.
(end part 2)
Again, these Are: First, there's the 14th amendment "right to due process under the law" provision - clearly violated. Second, there's the Article III cases v. controversies rule - clearly violated. And thirdly, "inviting" the case may be (likely, in my view) a violation of law and in the very least, quite improper.
...I suppose those who like the decision might say, naw, they didn't break the law, they just set new precedents.
And what horrific precedents these are - now the court can decide all on its own whatever it wants whenever it wants on any subject it wants.
Frightening.
Lets review, so we understand this properly.
(end part 3)
its the only chance we have to control this beast
And such a thing would bring back a modicum of power to the people. It is probably the most essential action we can take right now if we want to seize our government, and our country, from inevitable ruin.
The truly evil blow to democracy lies in the claim that spending money is equvalent to speech. Democracy is about one person, one equal poliitcal voice (expressed by one vote). The US has deciced that politicla voice should be proportional to wealth.
Un democratic rejimes are often condemmed for reducing a some or many individual's political voice, that is no more evil than a state which allows a very small minority to have their political voice amplified milllions of times beyond 99% of the population.
Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.
Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million.
From American Institute for Economic Research:
Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates. In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party.
My thought: The Supreme Court was just leveling the playing field.
My solution: Remove ALL donations from unions AND corporations.
I do not agree that the Supreme Court was leveling the playing field, but your solution of removing all donations from big lobbyists is truly a good one. Sounds a little like that public financing of elections thing, doesn't it? Would that we could go through some real election reform (i.e. public $10 checkoff on our tax return forms, limiting campaign times, limiting campaign amounts and where that money can come from, limiting the advertising to just coming from the candidates, clearing the airwaves for political discourse on the issues rather than rhetoric and hate-filled invectives). We could end up with a government that represents THE PEOPLE, just like our framers stated in the Constitution.
It would be cool to have the Progressives and Tea-Party folk actually politically talk our issues so that we can finally have majority rule with minority voice.
Sounds like America, huh?
At that moment the US moved from the universal understanding of democracys as one person one vote and one (equal) political voice, to one where the political voice of an individual was porportional to the ammount of money he had available for political influence.
Democracies routinely outlaw such a practice yet the US claims it is part of it's constitution.
The recent decision merely certified the folly and enshrined the doctine of government of the people by the corporation for the wealthy.
There is a continuum of political theory communism - socialism - capitalism - corporatism.
The left has almost universally conceded that the extreme left is a failed system with both Russia and China now well to the right of where the US was during the cold war. Both the world and the US should fear the fact that the largest military in the world is now in the control of a specifically non democratic corporatist state. Add the obvious paranoia of those in congress still fighting the cold war and the paralleles with Japan in the 1930 grow closer still. Western Europe will eventually need to form an axis with Russia and China to face down the US military corporatist complex.
China and Russia are both still totalitarian entities. China has a bright new, shiny face but at her heart she is still a cold, cruel nation with very few positive people policies. China has an ever expanding "military corporatist complex" as does Russia and they both still have their eyes on world domination. Russia is right now in the process of expanding her "Fleet Intercontinental Balistic Missile Program". New submarines ( The Borie Class) and a brand new, multiple war head missile to go with them( if they can the Bulava to work right). Although Russia has opened up a great deal since I was there (late"70's early "80's), "Big Brother" still watches very, very closely. The "Cold War " is over? I think not, just the name has been changed. Both Russia and China have the U.S. written into all their stratigic targeting packages as they are in ours. Some times a little paranoia keeps you alive!
Please tell me which nation is not run by the "wealthy". Russia has always been run by the wealthy, as has China. Do you think Castro is a poor man? As for a "Western Eurpoean Axis", Russia does not want to aly with Europe, she wants to own it. Putin wants a new Soviet Union and Western Europe is too dependant on the U.S. to really piss us off.
The destruction of the middle class has been the Republican's goal since their hero was sworn in in 1981 and Roberts is really a Buck Private in their Army even though he wears 4 starts on his robe.
Hi baseball analogy was idiotic. He is a Shoeless Joe Jackson and The Roberts court will be rememebered how the Black Sox in 1919 when that team" fixed" the World Series.
Toobin's analogy is spot on.