Mitt, congratulations.
At long last, you are the official Republican nominee for president.
And a special shout-out to the people without whom your victory would have been impossible: I am speaking of course, of John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito: The deciders in the calamitous Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, which abolished limits on independent expenditures for political campaigns.
The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United has since been the basis for another decision in the DC Circuit Court that gave individuals (corporations and unions, as well) the right to make unlimited contributions to so-called super PACs that support individual candidates. The decisions have unleashed some very grouchy billionaires on the rest of us -- the prime example being Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul, who gave Newt Gingrich's super PAC 15 million dollars.
But the single greatest beneficiary of the extraordinary new power of super PACs was Mitt Romney, whose super PAC, Restore Our Future, run by former Romney staffers, which has raised more than 50 million dollars in unlimited contributions from corporations and individuals. Its largest donor is Bob Perry, who has already contributed nearly 5 million dollars to Restore Our Future, and who was the lead funder for the 2004 "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," the vicious campaign against the military record of the 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. The Swift Boat allegations were discredited by multiple independent news organizations, including the New York Times.
Is Citizens United really responsible for the nomination of Mitt Romney? That certainly is the view of many independent observers of the Republican presidential primary. Or, better yet, just ask Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry about their views. To a person, they have said that without Mitt's super PAC buddies, and their "uncoordinated" (spare me) negative attacks on them, the ultimate outcome for the Republican presidential nominating process would have been very different.
And the financial evidence certainly backs them up: The Romney super PAC spent 21 million dollars of ferocious negative advertising against Santorum and 18 million dollars against Gingrich (10 million against Gingrich in the Florida primary, alone).
Thus, it can be fairly argued that Citizens United has already changed the outcome of a presidential primary. And it is a decision that is sure to inflict even more damage to our political system by contributing to a growing belief among average Americans that the system is rigged for the wealthy and the well connected.
But forget about Mitt's nomination, the growing alienation of Americans from their political system, or the huge public disapproval of Citizens United that has been revealed in every poll that has been taken on the subject. Consider this vastly more important reality:
Citizens United has reversed the long arc of American democracy and our steady progress to expand the voting franchise so that all of our citizens have an equal voice in our political system.
This journey has never been easy, and it has involved some of the most celebrated and difficult moments in American history -- a struggle that raged across every region of our country, and one that involved millions of American men and women and people of all colors.
But now with the stroke of a judicial pen (or five pens), the Roberts Court has reversed a century of regulating campaign contributions, and in so doing, they have given the wealthiest among us more power to influence the outcome of elections than they have ever enjoyed.
It is hard to believe this outcome is one our founders would have approved -- or ever thought possible.
Bill Moyers and Michael Winship: Pity the Poor Billionaires
Peter Scheer: How Citizens United Can Be Used to Curtail Super PAC Spending
Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm: Get Mad as Hell About Citizens United and Register to Vote
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
I sometimes use terms that require familiarity or actually looking them up.
"Collectiist tyranny?"
ROFLMAO.
What happened... did you run a stop sign and get a ticket from an officer of the Big Bad Tyrannical Collectivist State (TM) ?
Do you really believe that the path to freedom runs through oligarchic corporate feudalism, where dollars equal votes instead of one person, one vote?
Quit going to motel-room seminars where they fill your empty head with nonsense, and go to a real college and get a real education instead.
What do you suppose would be their reaction to the Roberts five?
Do you think they would say to the justices, "Yes, your decision is exactly what we meant when we wrote the constitution -- that corporations are people; that money is speech; and that campaign contributions are not bribes? Well done, justices."
Or do you think George and Ben would have taken the Robert's 5 out behind the woodshed for a good "whippin"?
So much for the justices who profess to be "strict Constitutionalists" and who maintain that they interpret the Constitution as the founding fathers supposedly wrote it. George and Ben would have had them "whupped" twice.
For my own part, I choose to distrust anything that's HEAVILY FUNDED. That alone is a sure sign that whatever is being pushed on us is against our interest.
Anything coming from any Republican is assumed to be fiction.
Period.
If you don't like the results, then get to work on a more supportive, Democratic Congress and be sure that BO wins re-election, followed by a few more good Democrats. That will swing the Court the other way. It will take a generation. Will the result be a political court? Sure. Just look at this one.
Staunch Republicans, all.
14th Century would be more like it, by the way.
at first glance i thought mr. martilla's blog was a nice piece of irony. after thinking about it i realize that he's right. irony be damned - the habitual liar is the nominee because of this ruling. maybe enough people will speak out and/or find the crack in the holding that will allow us to take our democracy back. i hope it's not too late.
The good news is, with exception of Perry's demise, the debates have not been pivotal. The bad news is that the truly decisive element has been something even more insidious: money. Lots of it.
This is not new. But since a 2010 supreme court ruling allowing unlimited campaign contributions by corporations and unions, it has become particularly acute. Moreover, the contributors can remain anonymous. The organisations that are taking advantage of this new law are known as Super Pacs. their potential for framing the race is clear. In the whole of 2008 individuals, parties and other groups spent $168.8m independently on presidential election. This year on Republican candidates alone, where voting started less than month ago, the Super Pacs have reported independent expenditures of almost $40m. In 2008 election spending doubled compared with 2004. This year industry analysts believe money spent just on television ads is set to leap by almost 80% compared with four years ago.
Money in American politics was already an elephant in the room. Now supreme court has given it a laxative, taken away the shovel, and asked us to ignore both the sight and the stench.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/30-6
Yes we are going backwards, but people are people, and even if unions are destroyed completely, people will always find a way - after they've been hurt enough - to organize themselves and use their votes to get out of office those people responsible for making their lives worse.
One thing they can't take away is the power of an individual's vote. While I empathize with your pessimism, and certainly don't hold it against you, I am not yet ready to believe that citizens will continue to vote against their own interests. Many believe they are no better off after the last 3 years....but they have yet to taste and feel the alternative. Don't despair my friend!
And they wonder why the electorate is cynical, or why the govt. is dead in the water disfunctional, or why the myth of the US as the greatest country in the world is perpetuated despite no one with any brains or even has been remotely paying attention believews it anymore.
I blame the lack of Democratic opposition as much as the GOP minority rule by means of filibuster & the Dictatorship of Grover Norquist, the poster boy for No More Taxes On the Ultra-Rich. The Dems allowed this twisting of the Constitution to require 60 votes vs. 51 for any legislation to pass, or no rules/filibuster reform, or no prosecution of the Wall St. banksters.
Look it up.
Bush 43 ushered this era of copoirations using govt. leverage to enhance their record profits just as he ushered in the era of overt class warfare with his obscene tax cuts for the megawealthy.
And we the people allowed it to happen. We had the power to prevent it but we gave all our power away. Now those who have all the money have all the power and it will take nothing less than a war to get it back.
I think we've long ago surpassed "belief" and entered in fact territory.
Last time I check, Newt had failed to secure the nomination. So much for buying elections.
" . . .Citizens United has reversed the long arc of American democracy and our steady progress to expand the voting franchise so that all of our citizens have an equal voice in our political system. . . . "
The equality of the voice is manifest in the voting booth. Everyone gets one vote. No more, no less. Teh rich guy and the poor guy both get one vote. That equality, the equality that counts, remains in tact as it has always been.