American Democracy, R.I.P. 1776-2010
Harry Hope
http://trueslant.com/paultullis/2010/01/21/american-democracy-r-i-p-1776-2010/
Jan. 21 2010
American democracy, R.I.P. 1776-2010
Say goodbye to the American experiment in democracy.
Thanks to the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, as
of today it�s of Citibank, by ExxonMobil, and for Duke Energy.
�The Court�s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected
institutions across the Nation,� wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in
the dissenting opinion. And that�s putting it mildly.
As of today, there is literally nothing to prevent Wal-mart from
spending a billion dollars on a candidate it likes, or against a
candidate it doesn�t like.
One who favors allowing workers to unionize, for instance.
Goldman Sachs could spend its entire bonus pool on defeating any
member of Congress who votes for derivatives to be regulated (or
bonuses limited).
That�s because of its ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC.
The details of the case can be read here,
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09slipopinion.html but the
effect is this:
Unlimited campaign contributions from corporations.
Conservatives will say that unions have the ability to do the same.
That�s true.
But unions don�t have as much money as corporations, and they never
will.
In fact, corporations could buy politicians who they�d send to
Washington to outlaw unions.
The reverse is impossible.
(The unions would sue, citing freedom of association, but the Supreme
Court, if it can overrule several longstanding precedents, fundamental
principles of logic, and a century of law�as it did today�would
probably just rule against them.)
Associates like Alito, and Chief Roberts repeatedly stated in
confirmation hearings their profound respect for the principle of
stare decisis, or �the decision must stand.� Roberts:
�If an overruling of a prior precedent is a jolt to the legal system,
it is inconsistent with the principles of stability�Those precedents
that were overruled [e.g., in Brown vs. Board of Education] had proved
unworkable.�)
Today they were proven liars.
They decided that the decision reached in a previous case, known as
Austin, as well as parts of decisions that have stood for much longer,
must not stand.
As Justice Stevens wrote in the dissent, the Court in the past has
accepted
"special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since
the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907 [and] �unanimously concluded
that this �reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by
those entities to the electoral process,� [FEC v. National Right to
Work Comm.], and [has] accepted the �legislative judgment that the
special characteristics of the corporate structure require
particularly careful regulation.�
The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the
distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an
invidious novelty born of Austin.
Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes
through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law."
What�s their reason for making this exception?
Because one of their own�the most right-wing (�conservative� is a
disservice) member of the court since the 19th century, Antonin
Scalia�wrote three years ago that
"Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment
principles."
In other words, �because we said so.�
Overturning Austin, besides departing from the significant precedent
it rests on, relies on the notion that the speech of a corporation is
equivalent to that of a human being because a corporation can be
composed of an �association of citizens.�
But a corporation can also be composed of an association of
non-citizens, or of non-residents to the area whose representative it
is helping to choose, or of people who do not agree with the course of
action undertaken by the corporation in a particular election.
Or, indeed, of any group of individuals who decides to sign a piece of
paper, open a bank account, and endow it with an unlimited sum of
money, which it can as of today spend on campaign commercials and
donations to candidates.
This the majority seems to have forgotten, or decided to ignore.
The Court did not have to rule so widely in order to decide for the
appellant in this case.
Citizens United is not a corporation, but a non-profit.
The relevant part of the statute barred it from running what amounted
to a campaign ad within 30 days of the election.
It wasn�t �banned� from engaging in speech, or even this kind of
speech.
The restriction was very specific, but the majority decided to reach
far beyond the issues raised by this case in order to make a much
broader ruling affecting a much larger class of entities.
The difference is known as that between �partial� and �facial�
rulings, and as Stevens noted in his dissent, �This Court has
repeatedly emphasized in recent years that �[f]acial challenges are
disfavored.�
So a Republican-majority court isn�t even holding to its own
precedents.
Its overruling itself, in this one instance, because it feels like it.
This is the definition of judicial activism, which conservatives so
like to decry�as a matter of principle, they say.
Except when it goes against them. Bush v. Gore was the exact same
thing, as was the overturning of a 1911 Supreme Court case in 2007 and
a racial discrimination case it ruled on that same year, in which it
essentially said that racial discrimination in education is no longer
a problem (despite mounds of data to the contrary).
The majority in Citizens United decision, in addition to favoring both
this abandonment of precedent and the belief that a corporation is
human, declares its belief that restricting some forms of corporate
involvement in the electoral process during certain time periods
�fails to serve any substantial governmental interest in stemming the
reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral process.�
How can anyone who has read a newspaper in the last forty years
believe this to be true?
The Senator who used to represent Washington was known as �the Senator
from Boeing.�
Moreover:
If there is no corruption in the electoral process, why do
corporations seek to influence it?
They don�t get a tax write-off, and by law they act only in the
interest of their own growth, profit, and extension.
You can go one of two ways on this:
Either you recognize that corporations are influencing the electoral
process�in which case, by the majority�s own reasoning, it merits
restriction�or you have to prosecute any corporation that donates to
candidates, or buys campaign ads, or pays a lobbyist, for wasting
shareholder money.
You can do neither.
And if speech by a corporation cannot be banned in any context, as the
Court ruled today, how is bribery illegal?
________________________________________________
Harry
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> http://trueslant.com/paultullis/2010/01/21/american-democracy-r-i-p-1776-2010/
>
> Jan. 21 2010
>
> American democracy, R.I.P. 1776-2010
>
>
> Say goodbye to the American experiment in democracy.
>
> Thanks to the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, as
>
> �The Court�s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected
> institutions across the Nation,� wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in
> the dissenting opinion. And that�s putting it mildly.
If money can buy your vote..... Are you too stupid to allow all
information and then pick the best option? Maybe if you can't control
yourself then you shouldn't be voting anyways. The process take a
person that can think for themselves, if you can do that, then this new
ruling has ZERO EFFECT other than to allow more information.
You know you should be excoriating the the government for this stuff,
they often throw overwhelming money and malice towards a subject and try
to manipulate the masses. Why should we be any less free. We have
government "advertising campaigns" on policies and subjects and yes
elections, with free TV time controlled by the Leftist Media, this will
level the playing field.
The only way government can make anything equal is to sty out of the way
of the freedom.
CB
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:5mgjl5trbtq2t41i5...@4ax.com...
>
> http://trueslant.com/paultullis/2010/01/21/american-democracy-r-i-p-1776-2010/
>
...
>
> Associates like Alito, and Chief Roberts repeatedly stated in
> confirmation hearings their profound respect for the principle of
> stare decisis, or "the decision must stand." Roberts:
>
> "If an overruling of a prior precedent is a jolt to the legal system,
> it is inconsistent with the principles of stability.Those precedents
> that were overruled [e.g., in Brown vs. Board of Education] had proved
> unworkable.")
There are exceptions to any rule. Think of this as a 'Progressive' measure
that insures freedom of expression
>
> Today they were proven liars.
They were proven to eccept exceptions.
There once were Slavery law to, dink.
CB
documentaries advocating their favorite candidates 30 days before an
election. The ruling over turns McCain-Feingold
Steven L.
> http://trueslant.com/paultullis/2010/01/21/american-democracy-r-i-p-1776-2010/
>
> Jan. 21 2010
>
> American democracy, R.I.P. 1776-2010
>
>
> Say goodbye to the American experiment in democracy.
>
> Thanks to the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, as
> of today it�s of Citibank, by ExxonMobil, and for Duke Energy.
>
> �The Court�s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected
> institutions across the Nation,� wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in
> the dissenting opinion. And that�s putting it mildly.
>
> As of today, there is literally nothing to prevent Wal-mart from
> spending a billion dollars on a candidate it likes, or against a
> candidate it doesn�t like.
Corporations already spend billions of dollars on advertising: They
advertise their products and services, and why they're better than their
competition.
It's the job of each citizen--each consumer--to weigh those claims and
decide which products and services to buy and which companies to buy
them from. And to help them, there's Consumer Reports and FactCheck and
lots of other aids.
Political advertising is no different.
And Americans CAN see through false and misleading claims.
The voters of Massachusetts saw through all the hateful bullshit that
Martha Coakley and the Dems were putting on the air (often running
attack ads against Scott Brown in EVERY commercial break of a show).
And they voted for Scott Brown anyway.
Your assumption that massive advertising will bamboozle the citizenry is
just false.
I'm not as cynical about Americans as you are. Presented with all the
facts, arguments, propaganda, they'll make the right decision. Not
always, but enough of the time.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
mr_antone
>On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:32:36 -0500, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>There are exceptions to any rule. Think of this as a 'Progressive' measure
>>that insures freedom of expression
>
>
>It does not
>
>It insures that money, not speech, held by the person with the most
>will get to "speak" drowning out all others
The more money, the more free speech.
>
>Including the fact that now Foriegn nations may "speak" and drown out
>our information.
Great point.
--
A Libertarian society is an oxymoron.
mr_antone
Sid9
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5NGdnXHKIIGo0MfW...@earthlink.com...
.
Political advertising funded by corporations will be so effective as to
guarantee election of officials favorable to the corporations.
Lobbyists must be telling elected officials, this very day, what they can
get by supporting their sponsors.
This is NOT in the public interest.
.
.
Have you forgotten "Harry and Louise"?
com...@webtv.net
tried to
CENSOR political ads that made her look bad by telling the truth about
her..shelost ! hahahahhaha
" SOCIALISM IS SLAVERY "
Sid9
<smo...@board.net> wrote in message
news:404ml59ng9i53em3c...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:30:16 -0500, "Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
>>guarantee election of officials favorable to the corporations.
>
> same elements
>
>>Lobbyists must be telling elected officials, this very day, what they can
>>get by supporting their sponsors.
>>
>>This is NOT in the public interest.
>>.
>>.
>>Have you forgotten "Harry and Louise"?
>
.
We are now near the Fascist Mussolini's concept of the "corporate state"
There's a fifth column among us and it's the Republican Party.
Curly Surmudgeon
Republicans: The Party of Sedition.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery good. Gays bad. Snakes talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pyjamarama
> http://trueslant.com/paultullis/2010/01/21/american-democracy-r-i-p-1...
>
> Jan. 21 2010
>
> American democracy, R.I.P. 1776-2010
>
> Say goodbye to the American experiment in democracy.
>
> Thanks to the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, as
> of today it’s of Citibank, by ExxonMobil, and for Duke Energy.
>
> “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected
> institutions across the Nation,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in
> the dissenting opinion. And that’s putting it mildly.
>
> As of today, there is literally nothing to prevent Wal-mart from
> spending a billion dollars on a candidate it likes, or against a
> candidate it doesn’t like.
>
> One who favors allowing workers to unionize, for instance.
>
> Goldman Sachs could spend its entire bonus pool on defeating any
> member of Congress who votes for derivatives to be regulated (or
> bonuses limited).
>
> That’s because of its ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC.
>
So American democracy DIDN'T exist before McCain-Feingold, you stupid
bitch?
And you still wonder why the majority of Americans reject your
socialist brand of authoritarianism?
Jesus H. Christ, Obama nationalizes (or attempts to) more industry in
one year than Hugo Chavez and not a peep from you assholes -- yet
SCOTUS affirms the first amendment and you go apeshit.
How fucked UP you are.
bvallely
> It insures that money, not speech, held by the person with the most
> will get to "speak" drowning out all others
Obama sought to re-define the word "corporation" to mean virtually any
couple of people who publish any book or produce any youtube video.
The lawsuit the Supreme Court settled wasn't against Standard Oil of
New Jersey, but "Citizens United", a handful of guys who polled their
recourses and made a documentary.
In the words of Obama's Deputy Attorney General, a five hundred page
book which contained a single sentence of political thought would be
forbidden to be sold three months before an election.
It get's better. Under the Obama plan, Free Speech wouldn't be
uniformly denied, but allowed to a handful of major corporations that
they trust.
Please explain why The New York Times having unlimited power to push
their views isn't a threat to Democracy, but a handful of guys making
a documentary in their basement is?
Beam Me Up Scotty
> ..
>> It insures that money, not speech, held by the person with the most
>> will get to "speak" drowning out all others
>
> Obama sought to re-define the word "corporation" to mean virtually any
> couple of people who publish any book or produce any youtube video.
> The lawsuit the Supreme Court settled wasn't against Standard Oil of
> New Jersey, but "Citizens United", a handful of guys who polled their
> recourses and made a documentary.
We may now see answers to Al Gore's lying video on Global Warming and
the connected Global Elite.
liberal
It also allows Chinese corporations to have a role in US elections.
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>
> Jan. 21 2010
>
> American democracy, R.I.P. 1776-2010
>
>
> Say goodbye to the American experiment in democracy.
>
> Thanks to the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, as
>
> �The Court�s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected
> institutions across the Nation,� wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in
> the dissenting opinion. And that�s putting it mildly.
If money can buy your vote..... Are you too stupid to allow all
information and then pick the best option? Maybe if you can't control
yourself then you shouldn't be voting anyways. The process take a
person that can think for themselves, if you can do that, then this new
ruling has ZERO EFFECT other than to allow more information.
You know you should be excoriating the the government for this stuff,
they often throw overwhelming money and malice towards a subject and try
to manipulate the masses. Why should we be any less free. We have
government "advertising campaigns" on policies and subjects and yes
elections, with free TV time controlled by the Leftist Media, this will
level the playing field.
The only way government can make anything equal is to stay out of the
way of the freedom.
Chaos out of Order
>
> > Jan. 21 2010
>
> > American democracy, R.I.P. 1776-2010
>
> > Say goodbye to the American experiment in democracy.
>
> > Thanks to the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, as
>
> > “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected
> > institutions across the Nation,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in
> > the dissenting opinion. And that’s putting it mildly.
>
> If money can buy your vote..... Are you too stupid to allow all
> information and then pick the best option? Maybe if you can't control
> yourself then you shouldn't be voting anyways. The process take a
> person that can think for themselves, if you can do that, then this new
> ruling has ZERO EFFECT other than to allow more information.
>
> You know you should be excoriating the the government for this stuff,
> they often throw overwhelming money and malice towards a subject and try
> to manipulate the masses. Why should we be any less free. We have
> government "advertising campaigns" on policies and subjects and yes
> elections, with free TV time controlled by the Leftist Media, this will
> level the playing field.
>
> The only way government can make anything equal is to sty out of the way
> of the freedom.
You don't see the flaw in your reasoning? Where do people get their
information? The "more" information you are writing about is
information paid for by corporations. With many news corporations
cutting the number of reporters, especially the highly costly
investigative reporters, the average news consumer is going to receive
a very biased amount of information.