Today's Supreme Court opinion marks a very bad day for American democracy, and one that was totally avoidable. Make no mistake: the Supreme Court had ample ways (I count at least six) to have avoided deciding the issues in the case. The case will affect not just Congress, but also state and local races, including judicial elections. In no elections will corporate or labor union spending limits be constitutional.
So what can happen now? There are a few options, but most appear either politically unrealistic, unconstitutional, or both:
1. Reenact narrower corporate spending limits. Some are suggesting that a narrower ban, such as one that targets only wealthy corporations. I don't think that will fly. Unlike many recent opinions from the Supreme Court in recent years, this one is not fractured. You have a united, five-Justice majority saying pretty much per se that spending limits are unconstitutional (except perhaps foreign corporations). There seems little wiggle room in the opinion.
2. Enact new public financing plans. If we worry about corporate dominance of money in the political process, how about trying to subsidize some campaigns through public financing. Today's opinion does not take public financing plans off the table, but an earlier Supreme Court opinion, FEC v. Davis, likely takes the most attractive portion of public financing plans out. Recent plans have had a provision allowing for additional "matching funds" when a candidate faces a wealthy opponent or third party spending. Relying on Davis's rejection of equality rationales for campaign finance regulation, an Arizona Court just struck down Arizona's matching fund component of its system. Without matching funds, candidates won't participate. With them, the plans may be unconstitutional.
3. A constitutional amendment. Are you kidding? A supermajority of Congress and the States to put limits on corporate spending. Not in my lifetime.
4. End the soft money ban. Really? Why do that? Well Congress might consider it because now third party groups, which tend to be more unaccountable and negative than parties will have greater ability to run ads, with parties' hands tied by that part of McCain-Feingold not yet struck down. The parties won't like it. If the ban is lifted, the potential for corruption increases.
5. Better disclosure. By an 8-1 vote, this gets a green light. Disclosure is much better than nothing, but it is not nearly enough to solve the corruption and inequality problems that will plague our system.
6. Change the Supreme Court. If one of the conservative Justices leave the Court, the law could change back in an instant. But that's not anything anyone can plan.
Patience may be the best medicine now.
Honestly I think that this court plans on overturning this ruling just like it eventually contradicted all the legal basis for Bush v. Gore the first chance it got. The neoconservative 5 simply wants to give corporations the opportunity to completely buy the 2010 and 1012 elections and destroy Obama.
A second primary solution would be to revoke the tax-exempt status of any entity that funds any political campaign. Again, that would not enfringe on the entity's first amendment speech, because individuals are not tax-exempt and exercise free speech quite well, despite being taxed to death.
Just some food for thought.
First, move the Supreme Court to North Dakota, or maybe Omaha.
Second, send Congress home to its constituents to do its business by video conferencing (at least get them out of DC and their bloated bureaucracies and incestuous slumming with each other and the Supremes).
Third, build a moat around the beltway.
Then, to balance the budget, maybe we could declare war on Japan and surrender so Japan will have to deal with the national debt.... and China.... instead us.
The Citizens United ruling frees everyone (of all political persuasions) to pool their funds in specially chartered non-profit corporations for electioneering purposes. Well-heeled class traitors (basically FDR's ilk) can now join with legions of small donors in very amply funding newly minted left-liberal electioneering non-profits to effectively spread the messages of third parties and their maverick candidates or populist Democratic insurgent challengers to corporate friendly Democratic incumbents.
Whether so intended or not, it is a cure for the sclerosis to our body politic that has been caused by the worst-of-all-worlds limits on donations to individual candidates, complicated PAC rules and the hellish Orwellian FEC enforcement bureaucracy that has made participating in politics far too intricate and intimidating.
As to the potential "drowning out" problem, there is only so much bandwidth available to electioneers during election season. Only so many political ad slots on tv and radio, only so many websites and print media outlets to advertise on, only so many organizers to go door-to- door, only so many rallies and debates one can attend, etc.
Once there is enough money to effectively get a candidate's message out eloquently to the multitudes, it becomes a war of ideas and character of the competing candidates or cause's advocates.
That is a fight real progressives can and will win.
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
Democracy is when "we the people" control the government and tell it what to do, on an egalitarian basis between us, because all men are created equal, and require an equal opportunity to be involved in our own self government. When one citizen can contribute one hundred and another citizen can contribute one hundred million dollars to "self-government," those who imply that a hint of such equality remains are snakes.
I once spent a summer going door to door and asking people to register to vote so that they could participate in our system. If I were to do so today, I would tell people DO NOT VOTE, YOU ARE ONLY GIVING LEGITIMACY TO AN ILLEGITIMATE AND OPPRESSIVE FRAUD.
The Constitution is the government's charter. If the government strays from that charter, it ceases to be the government and becomes an armed mafia. In my consideration, that move is now complete. I no longer consider myself a United States citizen, but a refugee in an occupied land.
Section 17A, subdivision e, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 required stocks to be immobilized. That happened in the early 1970s after a paperwork crisis caused more than a hundred brokers to go bankrupt. Instead of trading in actual shares, we trade in something akin to poker chips. "Security entitlements" don't carry the rights of real shares and over the years they turned shareowners into gamblers.
The first step in getting investors to think like owners is to make them actual owners. Together with folks at the United State Proxy Exchange, I'm drafting a petition to the SEC to have them help us change to a direct registration system. Go to CorpGov.net, take at look at that draft petition and my table on how street name registration results in rights denied Give us some feedback. Join the movement to control the corporations that determine more than any other, the air you breathe, the water you drink, even the politicians you elect.
January 21, 2009 to January 21, 2010.
WHAT is going on here?
Who will even bother to vote anymore when it's so clear that the candidates really represent corporate interests?
Something is very wrong.
The only good to come of this is that history books will have a heyday with the Roberts' Court. If the corporations will allow it to be written.
Let's try this. Citizens who want an amendment mobilize to demand that amendment preempt all other legislative business. Whenever elected officials show themselves, for whatever purpose, they confront angry protests (sound familiar?), and demands that the politicians endorse a pledge to pass and ratify an amendment stripping political agency from business corporations.
Congressman comes home to his district--protests at his district office, at his home, at any public meetings. President goes to Congress for State of the Union--protests along the street. Senator attends a fundraiser--picket the venue.
Make it clear that the politician can stop voter confrontations only by signing and abiding by the pledge to amend, but not otherwise.
The cause is just and important. It fully warrants the energy needed to keep it going until it succeeds. I think it will succeed fairly quickly, because I think most politicians understand the catastrophic effects of this Supreme Court decision far better than the majority of justices did.
"There is another way this can be approached short of a constitutional amendment.
We can use the existing laws that ban foreign involvement in US elections. We can ammend the law to simply say that any corporation or partnership with ANY shareholders who are not US citizens do not count as US citizens. That might still allow a few closely held companies to still have no restrictions but any publicly traded company would certainly be disqualified."
But how would it apply to non-corporations, such as "special interest groups" like charities, human rights groups, animal/environment protection groups, gun rights protections groups, etc.? Would it go on the source of their funding? Funding from U.S. citizens only?
apply to "all non-natural persons" or "all entities other than natural persons"
including charities
IS that wrong? Does that make me a bad person?
The only way out of this trap is for someone to use bullets on the SCOTUS. We are getting close to the point where violence will become the only means for revolution.