BREAKING: US SUPREME COURT OPENS FLOODGATES OF CORPORATE MONEY FOR CAMPAIGNS! [View All]

In Live blogging starting today at 10am EST, in what law.com called "a rare if not unprecedented Thursday session" of the US Supreme Court, the court issued a 5-4 decision in Citizens United totaling 176 pages in length for all opinions (the longest of this term and in a while...) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Scotusblog.com says this in live chat from the Supreme Court: "The Court's decision overturns the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections."

on edit: The partial dissent by Thomas complains about the one part of the majority opinion upholding disclosure requirements.

The five justice majority opinion, written by Kennedy, effectively declares that corporate treasury money has a constitutional right to be used in an unlimited fashion in campaign politics because it is proteceted by the First Amendment. This reverses approximately a century of congressional and state regulation of campaign finance. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

The US Supreme Court case Austin v. Michigan (494 U.S. 652 (1990)) is overruled.

The part of McConnell v FEC (US Supreme Court, 2003) upholding limits on independent corporate expenditures is overruled.

Stevens, in partial dissent, writes 90 page dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Ginsburg and Breyer. Exactly what "Partial" means has to be sorted out still since this is breaking...

TECHNICALLY: The Citizens United case is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. However, the affirmed part is only as to requiring disclosure by Citizens United, the reversal is much bigger and strikes down any right on the part of the government to regulate corporations like Citizens United in any campaign activity.

Thus, non-voters, non-citizens and non-human beings in the form of corporations, with foreign money, or mob money, or you name it, can take to the airwaves and contribute directly to candidates in an unlimited fashion. And, they are only about one vote away, perhaps two, from making these unlimited contributions SECRET so we the people don't even know WHO is talking at us so long and loud, or who's funding it...

This is a revolution against democracy, because We the People are being handcuffed and rendered helpless (by the courts) to have any kind of order in campaign finance. Rights are supposed to protect We the People from our government. Now the Supreme Court has weaponized the Constitution for use against We the People in elections of representatives to hold OUR power.

The First Amendment applies to government powers but elections of CANDIDATES are totally unique and special because they do not make law. Corporations, where they have legitimate business interests, live to fight another day. They are not harmed even by total exclusion from financing candidate campaigns. Yet the Court has opened the floodgates so that every representative can be considered bought and paid for - NO MATTER WHAT THEIR POSITION OR VOTE IS. In the probably rare event such position is progressive, it's bought and paid for by progressive rich folks...

I will probably edit this post as more becomes available and start additional threads.

Make no mistake: The court thinks discrimination on the source of funds is unconstitutional, but using corporate treasury funds instead of PAC donations from individual officers means Someone else's money is being used -- either consumers who didn't consent to part of the purchase price funding politics, or shareholders who are almost never consulted about political activities or lobbying: they too are compelled into forced speech against their will.

It's all about attempting to entrench corporate rule: But now it's all in the OPEN like never before.

Post-Script: The Supreme Court went way out of its way to do this. After oral argument in this relatively minor case, they asked for a special round of briefing on the subject of overturning Austin v. Michigan and another case. So much for the doctrine of "constitutional avoidance" which holds that cases ought to be resolved on non-constitutional grounds if possible. Legal bloggers have pointed to several ways the case could have been resolved non-constitutionally, and in nay event overturning Austin et al was not an issue raised by the original pleadings before the court.