Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Campaign-Finance Provision

[June bug]

Thanks, June bug! Good to hear from you. Today was a hard one. I began my fourth week today. Grrrrr. But still not smoking. What would I do without the corporation that made the patch????

Good for you!!! On the other hand, you wouldn't have needed the patch without the corporation that made the cigarettes...

The way I figure it, if Adams and Jefferson loved each other and hated each other's politics, there's hope for us today.

I agree there's hope, if we follow in their footsteps. I just don't see much evidence of that. Instead I see evidence of a lot of very personal hatred out there.

[John Thomas8]

[Foggy]

Thanks, June bug! Good to hear from you. Today was a hard one. I began my fourth week today. Grrrrr. But still not smoking.

Congratulations. Tuesday will be four months since I quit. Put your info into Smoking Quitmeter to cheer yourself up some. So far I have not smoked 4,234 cigarettes and saved $1,005.57.

What would I do without the corporation that made the patch????

I didn't use a patch or pills or hypnosis, just iron self-discipline. Helps that my kids would disapprove if'n I fell off the wagon.

The way I figure it, if Adams and Jefferson loved each other and hated each other's politics, there's hope for us today.

It's always morning in America. Did you know they both died on Independence Day 1826?

[Jez]

JT8 - That pic is hilarious!

[John Thomas8]

JT8 - That pic is hilarious!

It benefits from being accurate.

[Patricia]

It's always morning in America. Did you know they both died on Independence Day 1826?

Thanks for the good wishes, Foggy, and congrats to you, too! Yes, I did know that, thanks to Joseph J. Ellis. Meanwhile, in trying to get a solid understanding of the early years of the republic, it seems one has to keep going back in time to capture the actual economic and political climate that affected people and events. Where does it end, though? By the time one goes back enough in time, one has completely abandoned one's initial focus, or so it seems. That is, how can I get a good grounding in revolutionary thought without knowing all that preceded it? And how does one discern the myth from the reality? The more I think about history, the less confident I am that it is even possible to get an accurate picture of the range of thought. There are so many interwoven threads and so many viewpoints, some of which are taken in isolation to represent the era when they really do not. In other words, how much of the political thought is actually grounded in the economic self-interest of the various people who were influential in the era? How can one separate political thought from economic thought and the struggle for power and influence? Is there a subject that should be studied *before* history should be studied, like the philosophy of history? Questions, questions, questions.

I'm going off in this direction because work is nonexistent at the moment and I am thinking that I could do what my clients do: write a book. But what to write about? I'd like to find something really neat to write about that occurred in the revolutionary time frame. But I don't know enough minutiae at this point to think of something.

Are there open historical questions that need looking at -- things that one doesn't have to be a professional historian to master? I need to make money, in other words, and if my clients (when I have them) can get publishers to want their books, surely I can write a book, too.

[bogus info]

Poll: Two-Thirds Of Americans Unhappy About Citizens United Ruling
Evan McMorris-Santoro | February 8, 2010, 1:44PM
Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito may not have wanted to hear it during the State Of The Union address, but a new poll shows the majority of Americans agree with President Obama's take on the Citizens United ruling. More than 60 percent of respondents say it was a bad idea.

The opposition was found across party lines, and according to the pollsters was especially common among independents -- the group both parties have desperately fought over for a decade now. The pollsters said that result suggests that the parties would be well-served to take on the ruling and reinstate campaign finance regulations canceled out by the ruling with new law.

The poll was conducted by a bipartisan pairing of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon. The sponsors were several groups opposed to the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which they say will open the door to unheard of corporate influence in American politics. The results of the survey show that the general public overwhelmingly agrees. Sixty-four percent of respondents were opposed to ruling, while just 27% said they favored it.

more here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... cision.php

[June bug]

What they said:

Poll: Two-Thirds Of Americans Unhappy About Citizens United Ruling
Evan McMorris-Santoro | February 8, 2010, 1:44PM
Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito may not have wanted to hear it during the State Of The Union address, but a new poll shows the majority of Americans agree with President Obama's take on the Citizens United ruling. More than 60 percent of respondents say it was a bad idea.

The opposition was found across party lines, and according to the pollsters was especially common among independents -- the group both parties have desperately fought over for a decade now.

What they meant:

"Stop me before I fall for this crap again!"

[mimi]

TPMMuckraker
Lobby Firm Tells Clients How To Sway Elections While Avoiding 'Public Scrutiny'
Zachary Roth | February 17, 2010, 12:54PM



A "Public Policy and Law Alert" on the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling, prepared by two lawyers for K&LGates and posted on the firm's site last Friday, notes that, thanks to disclosure rules, corporations could alienate their customers by spending on political campaigns -- especially because they could become the target of negative media coverage.

[snip]

[G]roups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.

[snip]

In fact, as we've reported, that's a tactic that corporations already routinely use, and that the Chamber of Commerce pioneered over the last decade. But the Citizens' United decision means these campaigns can now directly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate -- and can do it right up to Election Day.

[snip]

Peckinpaugh and Roberts write:

Will U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations be exempt?
Yes. The definition of "foreign national" exempts any person that is "not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States." 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2). The Federal Election Commission ("FEC") has determined that this exemption includes a U.S. corporation that is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, so long as the foreign parent does not finance U.S. political activities and no foreign national participates in any decision to make expenditures.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... hp?ref=fpb

[mimi]

O'Connor Worries Corporate Cash Will Taint Judicial Elections
The controversial Supreme Court decision is expected to reshape the financing of elections
By Alex Kingsbury
Posted January 27, 2010

In one of the most contentious rulings in recent Supreme Court history, the high court last week overturned decades of legal precedent that limited how corporations, unions, and other organizations can participate in the political process. The 5-to-4 decision is all but certain to dramatically reshape the conduct of elections in the United States, campaign finance experts say. But experts remain divided over the ways in which elections, saturated as they already are in money from various sources, will change.

Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor this week told CNN that she hoped the recent decision wouldn't mean a flood of new money in elections, but feared that it would. She also raised the issue of corporate funding of judicial elections, an issue which contributed to her rulings on the bench, which upheld McCain-Feingold legislation in 2003. She said she feared judges becoming "politically-elected figures in arms races."

The decision struck down a major pillar of the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which barred corporations and unions from spending their funds on political advertising. Campaign finance supporters fear that with those restrictions lifted, corporations will come to dominate political discourse and politicians, once elected, will be more beholden to those interests. The ruling did not address legal bans on direct corporate contributions to candidates or rules requiring campaign finance disclosure. The court case on which Thursday's decision hinged concerned a politically motived conservative documentary targeting Hillary Clinton in 2008, when she was running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Hillary the Movie was funded in part by corporate money, which ran afoul of the law because it was deemed to be a form of political advertising. The case was first argued last March, but the justices called for a rare rearguing of it in the fall, signaling that it would be the vehicle for a more expansive ruling on the limits of campaign finance laws regarding free speech.

Remainder:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... tions.html

Still confused why some feel this is a major blow, and others say it's no big deal.

I wonder if we'll ever have a Democrat in the White House again? I honestly do. If corporations can spend freely, they will.

There may have been some dirty campaigns before, but I'm guessing the next will be worse. Just a guess.

[Smithereens]

Bill Moyers Journal had a program last Friday called "Justice For Sale". I suggest you all watch it.
The SC ruling on Campaign Financing not only means business can buy our politicians, but also the State judges including State Supreme Court Judges in states where they are elected by the populace.

What is it called when business and money interests control the White House, the Congress, and the Courts?

Here is the link: Justice For Sale

[DaveMuckey]

Bill Moyers Journal had a program last Friday called "Justice For Sale". I suggest you all watch it.
The SC ruling on Campaign Financing not only means business can buy our politicians, but also the State judges including State Supreme Court Judges in states where they are elected by the populace.

What is it called when business and money interests control the White House, the Congress, and the Courts?

Here is the link: Justice For Sale

Plutocracy.