On Friday night, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Montana Supreme Court's December, 2011 decision upholding the state's century-old ban on corporate political spending. The implications of this are huge, as it paves the way for a potential re-opening of the disastrous Citizens United decision that has spawned billionaire-sponsored super PACs. And if that happens, Chief Justice John Roberts better buckle up for a grassroots mobilization unlike any the court has seen in years.
Friday's decision was in response to a request by the American Tradition Partnership (ATP) to reverse the Montana ruling. ATP -- a conservative group that says it fights "the radical environmentalist agenda" -- has six weeks to formally ask the Supreme Court to review the case. If they don't, the Montana ban on corporate spending will stand. If they do, we'll likely see Citizens United revisited by the nine justices.
Since the Citizens United ruling over two years ago, millions of dollars have flowed from the super-rich and corporations to elect or defeat candidates. A handful of billionaires have manipulated election outcomes in a matter of days, buying vicious ads through super PACs that candidates pretend are independent from their own campaigns -- while their former colleagues and pals run those PACs. As Ari Berman reported in The Huffington Post, some 196 individual donors have provided nearly 80 percent of the money raised by super PACs in 2011 by giving $100,000 or more each. Secret donors using 501C4's have purchased 40 percent of total GOP primary ads with no disclosure of who is signing the checks.
The Supreme Court justified Citizens United by ruling that super PACs do not allow corruption or the appearance of corruption. Webster's dictionary defines corruption: "Impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle, inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery); a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct."
If our current campaign finance system isn't corrupt, what is? A handful of billionaires can decide who the next president will be. If our Supreme Court doesn't find that corrupt, or at least creating the appearance of corruption, then they are using a very different dictionary than the rest of America; one shape-shifted solely to consolidate power into the hands of the super-rich, the rest of us be damned.
From Occupy on the left to the Tea Party on the right, conservatives and liberals agree that crony capitalism is out of control, and is central to our nations myriad problems: banking, energy, jobs, health care... you name it. The people are mad as hell, and they're not going to take it any more.
And if the court takes up Citizens United again, you can be sure the American people won't sit quietly with their hands folded while the high court deliberates. They're going to shake the bars of the prison that our democracy has become, and demand a ruling that protects ordinary people, not plutocrats.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/18-5?page=1#comment-2062746
It is being reported that "the 196 individual donors who have provided nearly 80% of the money raised by super PACs in 2011" represent the the .0000063%. Citizens United was clearly a decision made by the elite for the elite. If the rest of us [all 99.9999937% of us] do not demand the reversal of Citizens United we will have effectively lost our democracy.
Koch!
Murdoch!
Walton!
"By your money combined, I am Captain Conservative!" He's here to strike down whatever civil rights, protections, and advancements have been made since the gilded age.
(And now I’m off to sharpen my pitchfork….)
; )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge
“Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to impeachment.”
So did I just read “Good Behavior Clause”….?!!!!
The US Constitution assumes that citizens are sovereign and have rights from their creator (as stated in the Declaration). But corporations exist as creations of the state; the state IS their creator in a literal and legal sense.
This case puts the activist conservatives on the Court in a bind. They have to either smack down the State of Montana and tell them they can create entities but not define their limits, or they have to back down the Citizens ruling.
As you can see, of the top 20donors, 13 have been unions (hardly a 2 bit player) and besides them dems are way in the lead of skimming the top corporations, including wall st.
Whether the turn of events showing how one man can decide elections or how 16 billionaires are deciding the elections and ruining the so called fair elections will make a difference, I doubt it. We have 5 ultra conservative Justices who are all for a corporate controlled country with a one party thousand year rule. Another reason to make sure we keep Obama in office.
There is a reason other countries limit even election running times. So there can not be such undue influence.
I wish we had Britain's election time schedule. Maybe because of our size just extend it a few more months but wouldn't that be great. No negative ads allowed, no slamming your opponent and a very very short election cycle.
Well we can dream.