Now What About Those Activist Judges?

I wasn't being hyperbolic when I suggested that the end of America arrived with the Supreme Court decision to permit uncapped corporate financing in political campaigns. Nor was I being sarcastic. It struck me as the terminal blow for democracy as it was intended and has been (at least by lip-service) construed since the country was founded. The outpouring of popular involvement in the 2010 election so frightened the country's real rulers that Samson's hair needed to be shorn before he fully woke. Enter the SCOTUS Delilah.

We should not be surprised by the ruling rolling back limits on Corporate participation in elections, since this august body already proved its willingness to overstep its mandates in its decision to undermine Florida's election laws in 2000.

This latest supreme trampling of our laws once again raised a big hullabaloo, but things seem pretty quiet now. What happened? What's happening?

I sometimes have complained that things went south in this country when corporations were granted rights once held to belong to individuals. Certainly there are those more politically savvy than I who held that sentiment. As the law stands now, we've come to the very southern end of the road south. Or, no, I guess that will be when Goldman Sachs is "elected" president, on a Supreme Court ruling that stops the recount called for by Bechtel. Or will it be the other way around?

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the high court ruled 5-4 that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech and can therefore use their profits to support or oppose individual candidates. The decision appears to open the door to unlimited spending by corporations, trade groups and unions in the weeks leading up to an election, which has been explicitly banned for decades.

  WaPo

It's interesting (in an activist sort of way) that the underlying lawsuit heard by the SCOTUS (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) did not propose any change in the laws regarding corporate campaign contributions. All it did was ask the court to rule on whether the Hillary Clinton flame film was a film pure and simple or a negative campaign ad. The Conservative activists on the bench decided it was a great opportunity to make some new law, without going through Congress. How is a decision like that legal? Not that legal or Constitutional matters in this country any more.

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed.

  WaPo

And as Big Dick Cheney might say, so what?

Besides, give Glenn Beck and Fox a little time, and those polls will change. There's a huge population of Americans who don't know what they're for or against, aside from Muslims, liberals and abortion, until Fox tells them.

President Barack Obama [...] said [the court's decision] "opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money" and vowed to push legislation that would "repair the damage."

That presents a tricky task, since overturning the essential verdict would require a constitutional amendment. But last week, congressional Democrats unveiled a bill intended to curb the effects of the decision, with New York Sen. Charles Schumer warning, "If we don't act quickly, the court's ruling will have an immediate and disastrous impact on the 2010 elections."

  Chicago Tribune

That is about what I would expect from a Congress Critter. He's concerned that the decision will impact party power. If the ignoramus would have actually thought before he spoke, he might have more cleverly framed his objection to include something that Republicans could rally behind, should they be so inclined – something like the spirit of democracy. The way he's attacking it, the Republicans are bound by party loyalty to uphold the ruling.

Under legislation being drafted by Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), companies with foreign ownership or federal contracting ties would be limited in their ability to spend corporate money on elections.

  WaPo

It's supposed to make you rest easy, I guess, that "foreign" companies and government contractors wouldn't be allowed to play. Will subcontractors be able to claim they don't have federal contracting ties since they don't directly sign contracts with the government? I would think a fairly smart lawyer could handle that, so I hope they're going to cinch up that legislation good and tight.

The lawmakers also want to require companies to inform shareholders about political spending; to mandate special "political activities" accounts for corporations, unions and advocacy groups; and to require that corporate executives appear in political advertising funded by their companies.

The "disclaimer and disclosure requirements" - as though that might somehow curtail (or at least legitimize) the contributions.

Other likely proposals include banning participation in U.S. elections by bank bailout recipients.

And why not let banks getting federal bailout money play? What about banks who hope to get federal money depending upon which candidate is elected?

The court said corporations are being denied their right to express their views and that citizens are being denied information by banning the corporations from participating more directly and fully in elections. That's absurd. There is no legitimate reason to allow corporations to influence campaigns. A corporation is made up of individuals who already have individual rights to express and influence.

And somebody needs to keep reminding the public that a corporation's sole purpose is to amass wealth, regardless of the ideals of the individuals who come together to create it. It is not concerned with the interests of any one of those individuals, much less that of the public.

And it's not like those corporations don't already have plenty of influence in Washington, is it?

But I'm willing to be a realist. The last political battle belongs to the individual factions which now form the complex that actually runs our government. So who are you voting for – Bechtel or Goldman Sachs? Oh, wait. At last we might get three parties in this country: Military-Industrial, Financial, and Pharmaceutical.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

• Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

• Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.

• Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

  Move to Amend

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.