Because the Supreme Court majority launched a direct attack on American democracy in the Citizens United decision by allowing unlimited and undisclosed campaign donations, which reversed more than a century of judicial precedent and directly violated the pledge to respect precedent by Chief Justice John Roberts during his confirmation hearings, and which followed private presentations by two justices in the majority to interested parties, this is a call to arms to the wealthy Democrats and liberals of America.
I strongly agree with the decision by President Obama to support large donations to super PACs after a Supreme Court decision that deforms our democracy more than any acts since blacks and women were denied the right to vote. I believe the highly unpopular and profoundly unwise decision in the Citizens United case was the most reprehensible, anti-democratic and un-American decision by any court since an earlier Supreme Court gave judicial blessing to slavery.
What super-wealthy conservative donors and factions that Madison and Hamilton warned us against in the Federalist Papers understand, in ways that many wealthy liberals and Democrats do not, is this:
Citizens United destroys the American notion of citizenship by creating separate and unequal classes of Americans. It creates a de facto American House of Lords in which the wealthiest 10 percent of the wealthiest 1 percent are given unlimited financial power to attempt to buy our democracy in secret, while all other Americans are relegated to second-class citizenship.
My advice to Obama and Democratic leaders is to launch a national and aggressive full-court press to overturn the Citizens United case through constitutional amendment, legislation and state ballot initiatives that will rally the nation against this highly unpopular decision while, simultaneously, asking wealthy liberals and Democrats to make large donations to balance the scales in a fist-flying battle for the future of the nation that must not be a one-sided war.
Obama, like all presidents, has the huge advantage of the Teddy Roosevelt bully pulpit that is unique in American politics. He can explain to the nation, as only a president using the bully pulpit can do, why the Citizens United decision must be reversed and why, until it is, both parties should compete on fair and equal terms.
This is why I opposed the Citizens United decision from the moment it was decided, yet supported and urged wealthy Democratic and liberal donors to support super PACs such as the Majority PAC that supports Senate Democrats, the House Majority PAC that supports House Democrats and Priorities USA, which supports Obama.
I suggest Obama, all Democrats, liberals, centrists, independents, populists, the Occupy Wall Street movement and the large majority of voters who oppose Citizens United to wage a national crusade against this heinous Supreme Court decision on the floor of the House and Senate, in state after state and across the nation.
I do not begrudge wealthy conservative donors such as Sheldon Adelson, the Koch family and others from exercising legal powers so unwisely given to them by the Supreme Court.
But let's be clear: They are willing to spend enormous sums of money to achieve their ideological and special-interest goals. They seek one-party control of the presidency, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court for a generation. Their project is a one-party state of the right that controls the executive, legislative and judicial powers of government.
Today we witness in real time how superwealthy conservative interests finance super PAC machines of slander, pander and defamation against other Republicans. This is a modest preview of the general election.
When the super PAC money from the right totals $250 million, $500 million or $1 billion the question becomes:
Will men and women of the center and left fight as hard for their vision of America, or will they surrender from the sidelines? If they surrender, I tremble for the future of the nation.
This column was originally published at The Hill.
Campaign finance reform is long overdue; but until it arrives real people (in large numbers) will have to rely on out-of-pocket donations as well as the ballot box. This is not the best of all worlds. However, meaningful campaign finance reform is the one and only element which stands to ultimately decide all other issues. When money is removed from the political equation the world will change for the better and Democracy will have a second chance.
I have read a lot of over the top nonsense about Citzens United. But I have to say, this is so far off the wall that it will be very hard to beat.
The money donation part is old news but to treat corporations as though they are people is new news. If we had a priviledged class of rich people before (which we did in my view) then we now have an even more priviledged class of rich people in the guise of corporations. Why is that suggestion "over the top"?
As I am sure you know from reading the opinions, particularly Justice Stevens concurrence, Citizens United did not first apply the First Amendment to corporations. The Court's prior cases had done that.
Personally, I do not know who has the better argument here, Stevens, or Scalia. But I know this: corporations are just a form of organization that people use for perfectly legitimate reasons. Most interest groups, such as the NRA and NARAL, are corporations. Should they be unable to run political advertisements around election time? Whether political speech is funded by corporations or individuals, it is still political speech, and the government has no business suppressing it. The fact that so many here are in support of government restrictions on what is clearly political speech is, IMO, stunning.
Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?
Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising on the horizon?
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?
Should corporations kiss on the first date?
I realize that this is pure theological speculation on my part but the question is just screaming to be posed: When corporations die, do they go to Heaven?
Our lives - yours and mine - have more worth than any goddamned corporation. To say that the Supreme Court made a awful decision in Citzens United v FEC is an understatement. Not only is it an obscene ruling, it is an insult to our humanity.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
1.) CIRCLE THE WAGONS - we can't afford to give anything less than full throated support. There will be time to gripe about compromises after the election. You know the right is going to rally.
2.) DONATE - Give your money, Give your time, Give your support. Dive into the debate!
3.) VOTE!!! - Nothing is certain. Get your friends to vote. Get your co-workers to vote.
THE STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER!
1: Bush Tax cuts extended
2. Bailouts for failing businesses
3. Iraq withdrawal deadline by Bush upheld as well as maintaining contract troops and the $1 Billion embassy
4. Unilateral wars without congressional approval
5. DEA raids continued against legal state approved businesses
6. Constant currency devaluation through FED intervention
7. Destruction of the Constitution with a reaffirmation of the Patriot Act and legitimating powers from the AUMF in the NDAA with additional provisions for indefinite detention of US citizens without charge
8. Received immense amounts of corporate support in exchange for favoured legislation
9. Escalating national debt with no apparent end in sight
I hate the Republicans, do not get me wrong. However I find it insanely hypocritical of unrepentant Obama and Democratic Party supporters who apologize for all of Obama and the Democrat's failures of integrity. If might is right then don't complain about the Republicans. If might is not right then take the moral high ground and appeal to the American public. Standing on principles is great politics and plays great to constituents, so long as you walk the walk. Democrats are great at talking up principle but rarely back it up, as evidenced by the current Commander-In-Chief.