This morning, conservative activists on the Supreme Court dealt another blow to self governance by We the People. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court struck down limits on corporate and union spending in elections (including judicial elections) in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

What a lousy week this is turning out to be for our country.

The case

Majority Opinion (PDF)

Citizens United
Hillary the Movie

Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

—Justice Stevens, Dissenting

Reactions

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.

That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

—President Barack Obama

Schumer calls for hearings on ‘un-American’ court decision
Grayson on High Court Ruling: ‘Worst Decision Since Dred Scott’
Democrats plan bill to limit impact of campaign finance decision

Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century’s worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.

—Senator Russ Feingold

Common Cause: Supreme Court Decision Creates Political Crisis

Articles

McClatchy: Supreme Court ends limits on corporate campaign spending
NPR: Supreme Court Ruling: No More Ban On Corporate Campaign Money
NPR: High Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits
Washington Post: Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits

New York Times: Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits
New York Times: Justices Block Key Part of Campaign Law

Editorials

Washington Post: Campaign finance ruling reflects Supreme Court’s growing audacity
New York Times: How Corporate Money Will Reshape Politics
McClatchy: Who’s activist now? In election spending case, conservatives

Possible Remedies

Immediate Legislative redress
Alan Grayson is asking everyone to go to SaveDemocracy.net and sign the petition for immediate action.

Campaign Finance
Campaign Reform in the Networked Age: Fostering Participation through Small Donors and Volunteers, Brookings
Publicly funded elections

Legal restraints
Before corporate dollars are spent, must have majority vote of shareholders

End corporate personhood
Move to Amend
Reclaim Democracy
Free Speech for People

Activism
Voter Action
Move to Amend
Reclaim Democracy
Free Speech for People

164
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
40 Comment threads
124 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
26 Comment authors
KevenSevenKalimawhatsthatsoundchoiceladySanityNow Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
BigDogMom
Member
BigDogMom

Thanks to all you for posting all the petitions links here tonight, have signed them all and will be forwarding these links to as many people as possible tomorrow.

KevenSeven
Member

Hey. Let’s just impeach Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy for throwing the 2000 election.

We would only need 67 senators to go for that…..

Hopeington
Member
Hopeington

Barney Frank, on Rachel Maddow’s show tonight was hopeful about changing corporate law itself, to address this issue. If you missed it, check it out.
It was a glimmer from a corner I hadn’t considered.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#34985795

Hopeington
Member
Hopeington

I wanted to add, that while he said some hopeful things, I was hurling obscenities at the screen and my son was laughing and pointing out how pissed Rachel was, shaking her head at some of the wimpy ass blankedy blank shit that was coming out of his mouth about working with the Republicans.

BigDogMom
Member
BigDogMom

Hey Hope, I’m with you, I think all this talk about trying to work with the Repugs is hog wash…we’ve been there and done that, didn’t work, will never work.

Hopeington
Member
Hopeington

It was probably the first time I got Really Mad at Barney. Definitely seemed weak. I was glad to hear Obama come out and speak like he meant business. I think letters of encouragement to all our representatives is crucial right now, and the WH too.
Grow some balls people!!

BigDogMom
Member
BigDogMom

I was thinking of doing just that this morning by snail mail…Obama needs to come out strong on corporate/Banking reform, not this watered down bullshit that he’s presented in the past.

This crap about being bipartisan is not working, he needs to make some enemies, (corps/banks/repugs), and have some clear proposals and I think the people will be behind him.

KevenSeven
Member

I thank all the Puritans who insisted that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

jan4insight
Guest

Yeah, I once had a friend like that. Our friendship ended the night before the 2000 election, when I challenged his proposal to vote for Nader (!) because it was the same thing as voting for Bush. And he said he’d rather have Bush ,,, and this was gay man …. go figure!

Kalima
Admin

I’ve spent a few hours emailing with a friend in NC, he’s devastated and says that this could mean the end to the American way of life 15 to 20 years down the road. He also said that at some point this could be reversed but that these laws seem to linger on before anyone attempts that, still it seems like a small glimmer of hope.

KevenSeven
Member

America came out of the “Gilded Age”. We can beat this one too.

jan4insight
Guest

thank you. we need all the hope we can get.

jan4insight
Guest

Time for some music:

KQµårk 死神
Member

Oh yeah excellent mental health break.

Hopeington
Member
Hopeington
jan4insight
Guest

Here’s another link to add our list of those fighting against the travesty of the day:

http://voteraction.org/

bito
Member

It’s fucking over! Hope you enjoyed your last vote!!!

whatsthatsound
Member

Golden Rule:
Them what has the gold makes the rules.

choicelady
Member

On Olberman, the constitutional scholar whose name I never can remember – Jonathan Turley? – said that there are other ways to get at this issue such as opening up third party roles, etc. I think that is NOT the issue at all. We need to find ways to affirm the power of human beings, NOT “fictitious persons” who appear to have the same rights as we even though there is a fundamental flaw – they don’t have to be citizens, and they cannot vote.

Our entire history, especially starting a century ago, has been focused on limiting corporate power over our political life. The Progressive movement arose in direct response to the abuses of the railroads, etc., so where is the same outrage today? This is the second part of radical activism by the Supremes in response to corporate power, the first being the railroad case in 1886 (I believe that’s the year) using the 14th Amendment to confer fictitious personhood on corporations in the first place.

I think the greatest impact we might have is indeed to revisit this issue of corporate personhood and then make very clear that only citizens who can actually vote may contribute to campaigns. Period. Multinational corporations, especially those with HQs in other nations, should be barred outright for a lack of citizenship, and those with HQs here should be curtailed unless they can show up at the polls with a registration card.

The one thing I think might help immediately, however, is to take the fictitious personhood status at its face value and hold corporations to the $2500 limit each of us real persons faces with respect to direct limits on campaign donations.

Then shining light on our donations to PACs, 527s, etc. might open up at least some public awareness, and assuring that direct donations be controlled for the ficitious folks just as they are for the real folks.

Yes, this will affect unions and potentially even my organization (except we’re too broke to be of much use save for our moral persuasion on non-partisan issues. The idea of being a power broker makes most non-profits roll on the floor laughing.) So be it.

If we believe in democracy, it has to come back to people – real people, not paid shills like the bozos who collect signatures for money outside supermarkets.

This is a very sad day, and I disagree with Turley – this is not about free speech. This is about losing democracy outright.

KQµårk 死神
Member

I agree with you. Nobody funds losers and that’s why third parties never get the funding they need to be serious contenders. This ruling made the plight of third parties even worse. Turley I have found to be informative about the law but not politically savvy.

The only way to change things is to change the makeup of the courts and finally get rid of the corporate personhood axiom.

escribacat
Member

Interestingly, I attended a victim rights training last night as part of my advocacy work. There are certain rights a victim of a personal crime possesses, including the right to be present and heard at all critical junctures of a case. According to victim rights laws, corporations or other entities are NOT considered persons and do NOT qualify for these rights.

bito
Member

C’lady, this is the case you mentioned:

The stronger concept of corporate personhood is usually traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394). Corporations, being state charted entities, were and are regulated by the state in which they were created (incorporated) and the state(s) in which they operate and much of contract law is actually state law and English Common Law. This is why most legal agreements have a clause in them saying under which state's laws and jurisdiction will the agreement be litigated if such litigation should become necessary. With Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, corporations gained some degree of protection from arbitrary state action.

bito
Member

C’Lady, Why did Turley just chuckle and gloss over on the “Santa Clara” case?

What makes you think any law controlling the corporations will pass in the Senate before mid terms? The party of NO will block a vote!
They won’t come to their senses realizing they are cutting their own throats! If Obama proposes, gNOP disposes.

What makes you think Unions, 527’s, non-profits will exist in 8 years?

Hopeington
Member
Hopeington

Excellent ideas and comment ChoiceLady, your first paragraph spelled out the fact of why they are not “persons” and should have no say. It’s so absurdly simple I can’t believe they could honestly make this decision.
I see this as a direct attempt to put Republicans back in charge.

escribacat
Member

Choicelady, you are always a comforting voice of reason — even amidst disappointment and confusion. Thank you.

SanityNow
Member

so I guess radical judicial activism/legislating from the bench is suddenly en vogue? is there some right wing 2010 strategy being orchestrated here? surreal…

Chernynkaya
Member
Chernynkaya
Member

I wound up taking to my bed after all. Yesterday I thought that it was because of the Mass. election. Then this morning, after the INjustices ruled, I thought I was feeling worse because of it, but it’s just the flu. Now I have a good excuse to pull up the covers. Wake me when the revolution starts!

Anyway, I have talked to my only child, my son. (My two daughters are from my husband’s first marriage.) I have told him to leave this country and try to find one where they value life, value their citizens. Where they have universal health care and a few social safety nets; someplace with a little more humanity. There must be a place like that– UK? France? He’s got dual Israeli citizenship already, but that’s no place to go. Canada?

I love him so much, and I will miss him more than I can imagine, but this is no country for him, or for my future grandchildren. How sad that my grandparents struggled so hard to get to America and only three generations later, I think he should leave. Me, I’m too old now, but he still has a chance.

And as an aside: Poor president Obama– just what he needs– a constitutional crisis.

AlphaBitch
Member
AlphaBitch

Netherlands? We asked one of our favorite exchange students, Daan, to “adopt” us. Then we can move to St. Maarten, use all our retirement money, and be his “kids”. It was a joke, but not quite as funny today as it was last summer…….

Cher, that is what every good parent wants – a better world for their kids than they have/had. Even childless, I want the better scenario for my Afghan kids. So we don’t give up.

After struggling with the situation in Afghanistan, and feeling like it’s an uphill battle, I look now at my own land and see a much more difficult struggle. I mean, after looking at Haiti, I wonder: How much damage can a non-nuclear terrorist do versus what good old Mother Nature can do all by herself? But now I see this shift to a corporatocracy and it just saddens me. How can we preach good governance when we don’t even have it????

Hope you feel better – I had somne flu-ey thing that lasted a good week and has left me weak as a kitten. Go to bed, pull the covers up, and wait it out. I’ll be thinking of you and hoping you get better QUICK. We need you!

Chernynkaya
Member

Hey Alpha– A Big Hug to you! Thanks for all your words.

kesmarn
Admin

Cher, first let me say I hope you feel better soon. Flu is so miserable. And it’s hard to keep a positive attitude when the TV is blaring bad news the whole live-long day.

I’ve had the same feeling about my kids, too. But then I think–well, the country made it through the Civil War and the Great Depression… Maybe there’s some reason to hope. Some reason we haven’t even thought of, or hasn’t come along yet…

The really scary new things about this crisis, though, are twofold, to me: first, the one citizen:one vote principle was still largely intact (obviously, not for slaves or women in the pertinent situations that involved them, but otherwise)during the earlier crises–not so much currently, especially with electronic voting, and second, people had access to information that was hard to come by (slow delivery of papers, etc.) but, I think, somewhat more objectively reported.

Those things seem to be eroding daily now.

Chernynkaya
Member

Kes, you kinda disappeared there at the end– are you still there? 🙂

But I still get your drift. There have been tough times before, and terrible SCOTUS decisions– Dred Scott comes to mind. It just seems that we are headed towards a future of a corporate state– a fascist state in the literal sense. That is frightening and grim. Maybe things will change eventually– think of the African Americans who lived through the nadir of race relations in the 1920s-1960’s and are alive to see a black President. Or, think 1984. I think we must do whatever we can to change this ruling.

kesmarn
Admin

Cher, an evil spirit temporarily took control of my computer and prematurely hit the “submit” button, but thanks to my handy bottle of holy water, which I sprinkled on the keyboard, I have regained my power and finished the post.

But–you’re right–the only thing that occurs to me of late is that this must be the way it felt to live in Germany in about 1934. A gathering storm. A very large, menacing one…

Chernynkaya
Member

I hate when those demons get near “submit”!

kesmarn
Admin

I think there were actually two of them: one was a rotund, balding, cigar chomper with a radio microphone and the other was nasty-cherub faced and had vaseline smeared under his eyes. There might have been a third female in stiletto heels with a wolf-hunting rifle, but she got away in a helicopter before I got a good look.

Chernynkaya
Member

Whoa, Kes– those are some demons. 😆

BigDogMom
Member
BigDogMom

I can just see it now, our Senators and Congresspeople wearing sponsorship patches sewn onto to their suit jackets….with a large logo of Bank of America behind the speaker of the house’s seat.

People we have been sold to the highest bidder.

SueInCa
Member

BDM
It was inevitable don’t you think? The morals of this country have been under attack from within for a long time now.