BREAKING: US SUPREME COURT OPENS FLOODGATES OF CORPORATE MONEY FOR CAMPAIGNS!

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.

I guess we'll be seeing repeats of it all day because people don't look before they post. Ever gander at the "Greatest" page? Edit: Sorry for being a nitpicker but I mean, it's RIGHT THERE. Search doesn't always turn up a duplicate (understandable) but this one is just SO obvious.

:)

Got that right ;)

Please look. Thanks.

of like ads in political campaigns from people/craporations with more money - clearly more important.

this than many threads that dilute the discussion.

like this. If it were a smaller issue, dilution might well be the greater effect, so in those cases you may well be right, but I don't think in this one. Plus, this gives my comments (if they are presumed good) much more exposure than simply replying to a thread.

especially an older one, as opposed to starting a new thread. Your take on the subject, though, is undeniable.

First thing I did when I read your post was check to make sure this wasn't in Latest Breaking News. It's not, so this poster did not and does not need to check anything before posting. Especially since the majority of the post is their opinion.

Good on them. Once more, unless it is Latest Breaking News, there are no prohibitions in place for posts on the same topic. Please see the DU rules.

Content and comment are both important, and this is a big one, way less weighty stuff gets repeated around here.

Thank you for helping with housekeeping, although I think this should be posted in just about every forum on DU. It really is that important.

GD. Besides, this is worth more than one post, don't you think? Michael Jackson, Balloon Boy, even American Idol got multiple posts, and those topics don't really affect a single one of us.

:bounce: :applause::bounce: :applause::bounce:

I feel as though we have lost this country completely.

This is truly the day I mark as "the end."

With this ruling, we have no hope as far as I'm concerned.

:rofl:

At least Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are ideologically consistent. Kennedy's just a whore.

of individual citizens. Did I miss that in the Bill of Rights?

...rights to corporations. This is a huge loss.

There is no limit on their life so they can be immortal but they are not defined as immortal persons.

This is a decision that threatens every election in America. It allows anyone to create any corporation, fund it however they wish, and remain largely if not completely invisible. It allows the funding of candidates to be hidden behind walls of organizations.

Before today is out, there will be shelf corporations being formed for the sole purpose of funneling money to selected candidates in the primaries and general elections this year. They'll be pulled off the shelf and used as needed, leaving barely a vapor trail that leads to the Secretary of State's office of Delaware or some other state. Some mid to lower level lawyer in some law firm will be listed as the incorporator.

I do not know how we can hope to contain the overwhelming influence of money in campaigns, with this ridiculous conservative Supreme Court.

You know how they're labeling all the stadiums and arenas these days? The Toyota Center (NBA Houston). Minute Maid Park (MLB Houston).

In a few years, congress members will be like that. From Houston, the "Haliburton/KBR" congressman - Randy Republican!

could be that the gaming of regulations and controls is over as a palliative and compromise. Now it has to be reform that cuts off financial influence at the roots- as most democratically minded citizens have always wanted in the first place. Wistful thinking perhaps but real reform has been no better off while these regulation games have gone on to nowhere, some good effects notwithstanding.

Also the SCOTUS choices have to be freed for the money game influence as well which a democratically elected government would see to as a matter of due course.

Or everybody starts shooting at everyone else while the rich abscond with the Treasury to their hideaways.

Or we simply live and die like fools in an America easily tyrannized by its moral dregs.

That's positive, to know who we're up against (for those that don't already know or have residual doubts)

and not my actual opinion that any actual glimmer of change is coming from this. The boot on neck pure and simple at this point in time.

The flood gates have always been open.

SCOTUS just refused to throw a life preserver to drowning democracy.

Yeah, there've been big loopholes for some time but I don't think that makes opening all the valves and holes wide open a non-story or a yawner.

...just despondant.

Is 9am too early to start drinking?

That being said, I'm not going to stop you from having a drink if you choose to do so. ;)

...I don't care how drunk you get me I'm not going to a private chat with you.

:toast:

But your comment is suggestive that private chats with you are worthwhile. Is that an accurate statement? :rofl:

It's all just a matter of what I'll do.

So, I hope that non-chat was as good for you as it was for me. :rofl:

I can breathe now. Thanks, I needed that.

It's not as if the corporate dominance of our country has disappeared - it's completely entrenched itself into every facet of our lives. Now, it's getting drilled further into our way of life.

it's all about greed.

all about greed.

--the SCOTUS is an arena of raw ideology; the justifications for these decisions are left for clerks to scrape together post hoc.

And FOCK those fake, 'triangulating' Dems who helped them do it the last three decades.

But our wimpy Senate won't. No. Fucking appeasers. Surely one of them was involved in Bush's era of crime.

This is TOO important. I don't care about the precedent. Get rid of one now. Stonewall everything else until it's done. Squeeze the money out of every Repub district and senator's little pork stream until they comply. Investigate the fuckers until one of them retires.

This is war. If we don't stand up now, we're done.

In three days, a leading champion for financial reform now has his seat at risk. He's already lost major corporate donations in NC as a result of his work, no thanks to Obama. They'll target him now for sure, pouring hundreds of thousands of Bank of America funding into the state to unseat him. I don't want to name names to help the Republican trolls get one more day ahead on their work than they already are.

This land was your land
This land was my land
But now it run by
Big corporations

Like Eli Lilly
And A I G
This land’s being robbed
From you and me.

Just like one's stolen diary is still theirs no longer how long they're deprived of it...

As I went walking, I saw a sign there
And on that sign it said "Corporates Rule"
But on the other side - it said the same thing
That sign was made by corporate greed


(Sorry Woody)

as precedent and delivered us to Bush?

The Same Supreme court that said we have "special criminals" that are not afforded the same 4th Amendment rights as anyone else?

The Same Supreme Court that said private land could be seized by on the behalf of other private entities and handed over to them?

That Supreme Court? I wish I could say that I am surprised but of course I am not. 5-4. How does Justice Kennedy sleep at night?

This is going to let loose full-on Fascist/Corportism.

I have never thought of emigrating, but I'll give serious consideration to spending my retirement years if and when they finally get here someplace else.

This is another direct & catastrophic result of hard-core liberals voting for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore back in 2000.

A 5-4 vote. Roberts & Alito, both Bush appointees, made the differnce today. Imagine if those vacancies had been filled with judges selected by Gore.

When one reaches too high, they often fall further back. Folks, please think about this the next time you're tempted to "dig in your heels" because a Democrat isn't being progressive "enough."

We warn people not to tear down a democrat for not fulfilling their pet issue. We warn them that a republican could be their replacement. In response, we are told to stop fear mongering. A republican is now a senator in the bluest state in the union and now corporations can buy their republican slaves into office. Are you crybabies afraid yet?

Fuck you, Corporate States Supreme Court!

and Kerry, by NOT counting the votes in 2004, you handed the presidency to Bush, allowing him to appoint 2 of these traitors.

This is an EPIC event in the destruction of our civilization, species, and perhaps planet.

the voting machines, the media, and now they'll own the mind of every low information voter in the country.

The final nail in Democracy's coffin

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/amendment



via reclaimdemocracy.org

both said they would uphold precedence, this utter BS!

change this back be ruled as unconstitutional and therefore invalid?

It's not appealable. Even 100% of House and Senate can't overrule it.

The only thing that can be done is on the margins. Perhaps certain kinds of "foreign" money can be prohibited, but that would only put lipstick on the pig.

that addresses this particular issue? I'll have to go back and see what that was all about as I guess I must have taken away a wrong interpretation of what was introduced.

There are two press releases on his blog. From the first press release: Grayson Condemns Court Ruling






Rep. Grayson has introduced a package of bills entitled: Save Our Democracy

They have been in the past. Why not this decision? What is different in the language? Could you explain further?

If they anchor a decision on an interpretation of the Constitution, only a constitutional amendment will change that decision. (the other "option" if there is one is to find a hole on the margins of the opinion in which regulation is still permissible, but that doesn't overturn the decision in any way)

way of working around this. Further legislation that limits Corporate spending in another way? There must be a way to work around this without a Constitutional Amendment which wouldn't pass because of the very same influence of corporations. Right Wing always seems to find a way around things. It's our turn.

if the Supreme Court itself changes the ruling.

dressed in black robes.

corporations

I wonder how much money corporate america paid those "justices" for that vote?

Justice my a$$!!! :puke:

No probably not....we could miss the next episode of American Idol,, and that would be a tragedy.

And we can't count on the corporate media conglomerates to help educate the masses, for obvious reasons.

So that leaves KO, Maddow, Schulz and maybe Stewart to do the job for them.



Man, we are so royally screwed.

but little else.
I say take it to the streets and demand a constitutional amendment that makes person hood a thing applied to people.
Stop being scared and start to fight back.

obligations, debt and fear.

Things will have to get really really really bad before people take to the streets.

I returned to Europe to take care of my aging and ailing mom, and had planned on joining my son and his family in Texas again once my mom passes away. Not so sure any more. The SCOTUS decision, plus the pending evisceration of Social Security - it is frightening. I don't want to become a burden to my children.

that will destroy 38 years of federal campaign finance law, not to mention make a shambles of state's laws. There is a compelling government interest to limit corporate contributions. In the not so distant past, corporations completely dominated funding elections. In some cases candidates only needed a few very wealthy patrons (Rockefellers, Morgans, Guilds) to doll out enough cash to run a viable campaign. Imagine whose interests those candidates represented once in office?

Currently, even with campaign reform measures and limitations, corporations have done fine funding political action committees and lobbyists. If anything Congress needs to limit them further. This ruling obviously goes in the wrong direction and calls into question whether limitations can be enacted at all.

Something the Court seems to have forgotten is that Elections are about the People, the individual, not corporate monoliths. This abhorrent ruling is a game changer allowing greater corporate control of elections. It is terrible for democracy and terrible for the common American voter.

There's no fixing this country.

we definitely are now. This isn't surprising, but it still disappoints.

I don't like this ruling at all, I think it is bad to have so many rich, agenda driven interests involved in the election process. This just squeezes the little guy right out of the mix. I suppose we will need to form a corporation representing "the people" just to protect our interests.

The United Corporate Fascist States of America

The basic framework is clear - corporations have won their penultimate victory. The right to secret control of the campaign cash is the lone remaining hurdle to true rule over the government.

This is NOT what the founders had in mind when establishing the Constitution. We, the people, have been marginalized and shoved out of representative government for years, but this ruling essentially seals our fate. There is no salvaging this going forward, there is only revolution and starting over. The founders revolted against tyranny, taxation without representation and a ruling monarchy that was not responsive to the people. Well, sadly, we have traded one king for hundreds in the form of CEOs that now hold the keys to all future elections...

:wtf:

So, those who are well positioned in corporate America actually have more valuable votes than everyone else. In essense, their votes carry more weight because they have the money to make it so.

This is absolutely unconstitutional.

individuals?

Maybe at least George Soros could buy a couple of good Senators.

THE UNLIMITED SPIGOT IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD A FULL FLEDGED AD CAMPAIGN!!

We are truly and deeply fucked.

Soros isn't to different from corporate money, isn't he?
This is all about representation. If your representation depends on the charity of some well meaning member of the ruling class, you're screwed.

Strange, how Americans including liberals cheered all those bought governments abroad as a spread of democracy.
Yes, to those folks US money is foreign money.

Finally the chickens come home to roost. Isn't it ironic?

Corporations are still prohibited from contributing directly to campaigns, and the individual limits didn't change.

It's classic. Almost as if the Supreme Court justices who voted for it have SHIT FOR BRAINS.

So now the corporations will have more control than before. And certainly more voting power than the citizens.

What would George Washington say?

Talk about a vast right-wing conspiracy.... This is getting scary.

now run by an exclusive elite who only represent wealthy interests. In a Democracy, each individuals vote was worth the same... with this, there is no democracy, just bribery.

Welcome to fascism you antisocialist conspiracy rejects.

He went on a sleepover with the defendent in a case that was currently before him, and then refused to recuse himself when confronted about the impropriety of having overnight visits with defendents.

Fascism.

We have arrived.

This day has been coming for many years, most refused to see it.

Our Democracy is on it's death bed.

We will now see who is and who isn't a true Patriot, who is and isn't truly in favor of freedom for all.

This CANNOT stand.

Corporations will more than likely spread the money out among most politicians and on both sides to cover their bases. Does anybody think the Democrats will refuse/return any corporate money in the campaigns this year? What if more corporate money lands on the D side, do we work against anyone who accepts such donations?

A few thousand people on the left in Florida, voted for Ralph Nader.

This is Bush's work.

These are same people on this board, already giving up on our president.

You're all ready to hand Rush and Roger their great victory.

We are making great progress, our economy is in recovery, we have the strong majorities in congress. we have a brilliant young President and you go soft on a public option.

YOU DON'T LIKE THIS RULING?

JUST WAIT UNTIL PRESIDENT PALIN GETS THROUGH WITH THE COURT.

IF YOU KILL THIS BILL, YOU WILL KILL THIS PRESIDENCY.

Fox and Rush and the Chamber of Comerse will take over.

as in, I never campaigned on it?

Don't forget that.

fascist Germany and Italy - totalitarian states, generally, of right and left, have always done the bidding of their masters.

Its an iron-clad rule. There are no exceptions. How could there be?

Seems to me the mask is coming off. I mean this is so obvious attack on democracy that they must know they have all the power and dont care what we know anymore.

They're just knocking down the dam, don't need it any more.