Happy Birthday, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission!
You're one year old today, big boy. But just think of all the fine things you've done already:
But I don't want to make it seem like your life has been perfect, Citizens. You've taken some hard knocks for an infant Supreme Court decision.
At his State of the Union Address last year, the president called you out in front of the whole Congress and country, saying you had opened "the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections." You weren't even a month old!
Thank God Justice Alito was there to stand up for you.
But, still, you were rejected from the start by 80% of the American people, who think treating corporation like rights-bearing citizens of the democracy is ridiculous. Real citizens do seem to be united -- against you. As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion, your existence is "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt."
But now is no time to despair, Citizens.
Now is the time to look forward to placing your next mark on the world. Oh, the places you'll go, Citizens United!
What will be next?
Right now, the prohibition on campaigning by 501c(3) groups is justified only by virtue of their tax exemption. By taking a special tax-free status, nonprofit groups including churches agree to follow clear rules about political involvement
But you made this justification obsolete when you ruled that corporations could not be kept out of politics simply because they enjoy important benefits from the government like perpetual life, limited liability for shareholders, and preferred tax treatment and public subsidies.
You found that for-profit and not-for-profit corporations should be treated alike for political purposes. And neither for-profit nor non-profit corporations can be kept from spending in elections just because we subsidize them.
Lord knows there are a huge number of ministers already actively violating the ban in hopes of becoming the great next case testing how far Justice Kennedy is willing to take you.
Perhaps you want to move in another direction and establish the right of municipal corporations, states and federal government agencies, like the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, to spend and give money in political campaigns too.
Justice Kennedy adopted the position that the "identity of the speaker" is irrelevant as long as political speech is taking place.
Sure, some people will say that this will usher in the age of Big Brother when government tells us who to vote for. But we will tell them that the Fortune 500 companies that you endowed with these rights are much wealthier and more powerful than most cities, states and federal agencies so there can't be anything to worry about. And which governments will dare to support any candidate that the companies aren't backing anyway? When government can finally join corporations in telling us who to vote for, it won't be a conflict of interest, it will be a convergence of interest.
I know some of these situations seem unlikely, but remember, Citizens United, when you came to the Supreme Court, you were focused on a specific technical question about pay-per-view videos about political candidates. That didn't stop you from turning the world upside down!
Citizens, I don't mean to stress you out too much on your special day, so let me leave you with some sweet words from Oh, the Places You'll Go by Dr. Seuss:
"You have brains in your head.
You have feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself any direction you choose.
You're on your own and you know what you know and YOU are the one who'll decide where to go . . ."
Oh, and if you get a minute after the big party is over tonight, you might check out this long-forgotten passage from Dr. Seuss' Yertle the Turtle, which is a lot of fun too:
"I know, up on top you are seeing great sights. But down here at the bottom we, too, should have rights."
What a disaster this decision is. When the court decided Bush vs. Gore, I had a dream that woke me up and in it, I remember hearing that the Supreme Court decision was a terrible choice for our country. Why is CONGRESS not dealing with this through legislation? Because they benefit? There go our checks and balances.
Just a few months ago, I had another dream, there were tv announcers speaking about the financial crisis to come, hundreds time worst than the last crisis.
As a trained lawyer, a student of law, I am so disappointed with the Supreme Court, I've lost trust and faith. A one-sided political court is not a check and balance, its a stamp of approval for anything its party wants.
We had such a great democracy, why would our own Supreme Court mess it up?
Reversing 'Citizens United' | CommonDreams.org
"Reversing 'Citizens United'
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
[snip]
In just the past two years, corporate money can be blamed for watering down consumer protections and diluting health-care and financial reform. In truth, there is almost no conversation we have in American politics in which corporations don't occupy all the seats at the table. As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged while talking about big banks during last year's financial reform debate: "They frankly own the place."
Changing that dynamic might well be the central challenge of this generation. Reversing Citizens United is about more than any one issue or court case - it is, at its base, a question of whether American democracy itself can beat back a corporate takeover, whether our most cherished principles of self-government can ultimately prevail. "
YouTube - "The Banks Own The Place" - Senator Dick Durbin
Dave Harrison
www.tradewithdave.com
http://www.murrayhillincforcongress.com/
Murray Hill Inc. | Murray Hill Incorporated is Running for Congress
"Murray Hill Incorporated is Running for Congress
Corporations are people too!
Until now, corporations only influenced politics with high-paid lobbyists and backroom deals. But today, thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, corporations now have all the rights the founding fathers meant for us. It was their dream to build the best democracy money can buy.
That's why Murray Hill Incorporated is taking democracy's next step — running for Congress. Join us and build a vision for the future we can all be proud of. Vote Murray Hill Incorporated for Congress!
Vote Murray Hill Incorporated for Congress!...
McCain Feingold is overtly unconstitutional - "congress shall make no Law abridging the freedom of speech.
If the court had ruled in favor of McCain Feindgold, then congress could make a law denying the NYT from publishing certain topics, they could make a law banning the Huff Post, they could make a law banning CBS from any political discussions, etc, etc.
Overturning bad precedent is the correct thing to do.
Read Stevens dissent in CU - notice that he says the first amendment provides that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech yet he goes on to say that the court should rule otherwise we should restrict speech for the benefit of the incumbent - and because, we want to control political speech.
I think what Citizens United really did is enable a corporate coup d'etat of our government. We can already see it in the U.S. House -- just watch the corporate lobbyists write all the bills the Republicans pass -- and the Senate and White House could be next if the people don't mobilize to stop them.
People, you'd better get to work on this.
It may be our last, best chance.
http://www.citizen.org/citizens-united-anniversary-events