Ken Previti writes here about the illusion of democracy, the seeming choice between two candidates who are Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum. He cites the Governor’s races in Illinois and Florida, where the differences between the candidates are not large, and both owe their fealty to the same monied interests. He might well have included New York, where the incumbent Governor has lined such an imposing campaign chest that it is hard for a challenger to be heard.
Let’s face it. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision unleashed a tsunami of campaign cash, and cash fuels campaigns. During one recent Presidential election, some commentator said that a major party candidate needed to raise $1 billion to be competitive. Well, who has that kind of money. The very wealthy. This unbridled campaign spending distorts our politics.
This could change, as it has in the past. We would need a Supreme Court that is concerned about preserving our democracy and not allowing the 1% to own the political system.
If enough people were aware and involved, we could take back our country. Let us all pledge to support candidates early who support the kind of society we want to live in.
SCOTUS correctly applied the Constitution as it is written. If you want something different, start pushing for a constitutional amendment. No one should want the courts to just make up stuff based on their preferred policy ideas.
Funny, I didn’t find “corruption of the entire government process” written in the Constitution. Maybe on the back page in fine print?
SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution. They have made poor judgements in the past that undermined the intent of the Founders and liberty for all. Citizens United is a terrible ruling setting us back decades as a country.
It follows the Constitution and the law as currently written. An argument can certainly be made that the realities of modern life require different laws, but that is why there is a constitutional amendment process in place. Just because you don’t like the policy implications does not make United a “terrible ruling.” I, for one, do not want to be governed by a nine-member panel of elites who rule by judicial fiat. Even when I disagree on policy grounds, I want the law and the Constitution interpretted correctly.
One problem is that it’s often not possible to tell what “the Founders” intended, given that the Constitution is essentially a contract that was negotiated among a bunch of different parties with different interests and agendas. This is why courts give conclusive weight to the express language in the contract when it directly conflicts with what one party argues was actually intended. To some extent, that same logic justifies the principle of constitutional interpretation called “strict constructionism.” On the other hand, it also shows the limits of that approach, because some of the hallmarks of compromise are incompleteness and ambiguity. From the beginning, and just as they’ve done in contract disputes, courts have been forced to fill in Constitution’s gaps in ways that “make sense,” i.e., according to principles and policies that are simply not in the document itself.
In other words, to some extent, courts are required to “make stuff up based on their preferred policy ideas.”
True enough, Flerp, but there really is nothing in the constitution that justifies the kinds of campaign finance limits United overturned. Sorting out the competing interests of free speech and the right of petition on the one hand and the desire to limit the ability of moneyed interests to buy elections on the other is something best left to the democratic process.
“Sorting out the competing interests of free speech and the right of petition on the one hand and the desire to limit the ability of moneyed interests to buy elections on the other is something best left to the democratic process.”
That sounds like a dissenting opinion. SCOTUS invalidated the result of the democratic process, i.e., a federal statute.
Yes, a federal statute that was in conflict with the Constitution.
“Yes, a federal statute that was in conflict with the Constitution.”
Right, the theory being that things that violate the Constitution are not best left to the democratic process. So just to be clear, you’re on the “anti-democratic” side in this debate. (Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that. Constitutionally-speaking, sometimes the democratic process is good, and sometimes it’s not.)
I must have been absent from my US history class on the day we learned that the Constitution says that corporations are people and money is speech.
“…but there really is nothing in the constitution that justifies….”
There doesn’t have to be anything in the Constitution to justify a law, just nothing in the Constitution to prevent it. A law is only unConstitutional if it specifically conflicts with the Constitution.
It would be interesting if btgiv, you agreed with a ruling that goes against what YOU think is “right”. Free speech is broadly defined and it has become obvious that there are limitations on speech that serve to maintain civility and order. If you think money equals speech, then those with more money have more speech. There are those, Perkins comes to mind, that also believe more money should mean more votes. Maybe that will be the next “Constitutional” ruling.
I’ll add, too, that a Federal judge struck down Ohio’s very suppressive voter reform laws pushed by the Republican lawmakers. While conservatives love Citizens United, they are throwing a temper tantrum over the voter ruling. Seems they like the courts only when the ideologies align.
Been There, Seen That …
“If enough people…” Well said. The electorate still exists in a Matrix-like pod of goo, oblivious to what is going on around them. Mention “Citizens United” and most people think that is a new teen fashion store or Irish rock band.
Here in Ohio, the media is feeding people a steady stream of anti-school, anti-teacher, anti-woman propaganda. The Dispatch focuses on the Dem candidate’s lack of a driver’s license, while Kasich gets a pass on dismal economic numbers and a sinking state.
Consider contributing to Mayday Pac, organized by Larry Lessig. https://mayday.us/ Although I fully recognize the irony of donating to a PAC to get the money out of politics, such is the insane county in which we live thanks to Citizen’s United. Mayday’s aim is to elect candidates who are committed to a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen’s United. See also: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/04/from_the_beginning_i_was_in_it_for_real_ice_cream_legends_plan_to_radically_up_end_america/
Chris Hedges, “How Corporations Destroyed American Democracy”
I’m not sure what is your point posting this video, which could have used a few animations, graphs, and pretty pictures. If you don’t like corporations then why is your pension fund invested in the stock market? The CalSTRS website shows investments in risky stocks, bonds, real estate, hedge funds, and derivatives. 15% of CalSTRS invests in private equity, which carries HUGE investment fees whether or not the PE makes money. Incidentally, unfunded public pensions in the US total $4.5 trillion which is 5 times the TARP bailout of 2009. That is a debt that will burden cities and schools for the rest of the century and you can’t blame the private sector for it.
I just want a politician who abides by and upholds Our Constitution. SCOTUS = BAD.
I think Charlie Crist is an opportunistic pol who shifts with the political wind, which I don’t really mind because at least he’s right out there with it. You know what you’re getting at least.
Anyway. You guys should probably be heartened by his latest, because he’s a really good politician, as in “good at politics”.
Even in Jeb Bush’s Florida, you can no longer run on privatizing schools and standardized tests, apparently 🙂
“ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL IN FLORIDA: Would Charlie Crist put the kibosh on efforts to expand the Sunshine State’s school voucher program? “At this point in time, yes,” he told Morning Education. The Democratic candidate for governor added, “I think we need to refocus on public education in Florida.”
— Also on Crist’s radar: Testing. He praised the Lee County school board in Florida for deciding to opt out of standardized testing last month, which would have made it the first district in the nation to do so. But the board voted earlier this month to rescind that decision. Should they have followed through? “They had to do something,” Crist said. While some testing is important, the focus on testing in Florida is excessive, he said. “We need a renewed focus on learning,” he said.
He may not mean a word of it, but he thinks he has to SAY it to get elected, and that tells you something.
http://www.politico.com/morningeducation/0914/morningeducation15188.html
I agree. Crist may be a career politician, but I think he generally has good common sense. Maybe the fact that he is not a zealot in a particular ideology will beneficial in that, perhaps he will listen rather than dictate. He currently supports CCS, but perhaps he can change his perspective over time. With Scott, you know what you will get, more of the same; let’s privatize everything! This morning the paper presented some problems with his new private Medicaid. Few doctors accept it! Lots of the people with FL Medicaid are single moms that work in fast food. They have little time, money and resources to take a sick child to a doctor two hundred miles away! I am sick of Scott’s lies, dirty deals and arrogance. Crist has already said he would expand Medicaid if elected. Crist may not be ideal, but he is by far the better choice.
Absolutely!
According to the award winning documentary “Hot Coffee”, BIG money from corporations and billionaires wins elections 90-percent of the time. You may watch this documentary free on You Tube, and if you do you will be shocked at what these big money interests do when they lose an election—they spend even more big money to slander, libel and destroy the reputation of the winner they didn’t back.
Hot Coffee was a great docu and revealed how the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit was a big benefit to corporations. Clueless citizens were outraged at the plaintiff’s award and voted to limit consumer rights in these types of cases–so now it’s harder to sue your bank or credit card issuer, or your airline for bad service. I recently watched “Citizen Koch” which was about how the Kochs got Scott Walker elected governor. The film was done so poorly that it made the Kochs look like the good guys for fighting the unions that were bankrupting the state. I think they are the good guys but I don’t think that’s what the filmmakers had in mind.
Bear Sterns:
Correct me if I’m wrong: You think the Koch brothers are the good guys?
I used to think the Kochs were evil but I’m starting to wonder if they aren’t such bad guys after all. Scott Walker’s election was a huge victory for private sector workers. “Citizen Koch” was a mess and ironically the Kochs didn’t say one thing to embarrass themselves, while the union workers interviewed were clueless about how their pensions and benefits were bankrupting the state. Read the NY Times piece about the Kochs. In regards to global warming, I would tell people if you don’t like the Kochs then don’t go to Wal-Mart and buy a 40-inch TV that guzzles electricity but of course nobody is doing that. I hope the pro-union commenters here are aware of the fact that the GOP has a 50/50 chance of retaking the Senate in November, and the Kochs have paid for 44,000 ads in the battleground states. Most of these ads are barking up the wrong tree because they are about Obamacare but the unions better start doing some spending of their own with just 2 months left before the election
. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/us/koch-brothers-donate-heavily-in-kansas.html?_r=0
The Political Economy Research Institute ranks Koch Industries as the fourteenth worst air polluter in the U.S. in their Toxic Release Inventory, above oil giants like BP, Shell and Chevron and large coal utilities like American Electric Power and Duke Energy. CARMA reports that Koch releases about 200,000 tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide annually.
http://www.polluterwatch.com/koch-industries
A sample:
In late 2000, the company was charged with covering up the illegal releases of 91 tons of the known carcinogen benzene from its refinery in Corpus Christi. Initially facing a 97-count indictment and potential fines of $350 million, Koch cut a deal with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to drop all major charges in exchange for a guilty plea for falsifying documents, and a $20 million settlement.
Koch Industries and the Koch family spend millions of dollars on lobbyists to fight climate and energy legislation, millions more on politicians, and still more millions on organizations denying climate change. Through the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation as well as Koch Industries and the other Koch family foundations, numerous and substantial donations go to organizations that deny, skepticize or belittle the significance of global warming. Compared to ExxonMobil, which has spent over $27.4 million on skeptic groups since 1998, foundations linked to Koch Industries have spent over $70 million in traceable contributions to the same network of organizations, with addition untraceable funding funnelled through organizations like Donors Trust. Key Koch-backed organizations include the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which was founded and remains chaired by David Koch, the Cato Institute, which Charles Koch co-founded and David Koch remains a board member after an attempted coup, the Institute for Humane Studies, which is chaired by Charles Koch, and the Reason Foundation, of which David Koch is a trustee.
International bribes and trading with Iran:
Bloomberg Markets Magazine reports that Koch Industries, through a French subsidiary, sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, and also appears to have bribed companies in countries like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, India and Nigeria to solicit business contracts from 2002-2008.
In addition, here’s a post about “The Koch Brothers War on Education”:
http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/the-koch-brothers-war-on-education/
And then this:
http://aattp.org/destroying-education-koch-brothers-now-busting-teachers-union/
Here’s one from the Chicago Sun Times:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/5492602-452/koch-brothers-wage-a-war-on-americans.html#.VAuRafldWno
Another from The New Yorker:
The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations
Interesting. I was just rereading Will Durant’s book “The Story of Philosophy”. Plato millennia ago outlined how a democracy “progressed”. How VERY up to date. One would think it was written yesterday.
It’s worth noting that Citizens United was a 5-4 decision authored by one GWB appointee and joined by another. The arguments about how there’s no difference between the two major parties because they’re both controlled by corporate money, I heard a lot of those in 2000. People like to say that you have no right to complain about politicians if you don’t vote. Maybe people who say there’s no important distinction between the Republican and the Democrat parties have no right to complain about decisions like Citizens United.
The wikipedia tracing of this absurdity of treating corporations as persons is approximated here. Apparently the corporation as a person became an immovable prescedent in a case involving the Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888).
That argument cited the Fourteenth Amendment and asserted that “Under the designation of ‘person’ there is no doubt that a private corporation is included because corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members. This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.
So, this is why corporations can buy elections, and destroy the whole concept of free speech for anyone else.
Not exactly. They have never ruled on the central thesis itself, but always wimped out on some side issue that it it stand de facto.
See Thom Hartmann • Unequal Protection : How Corporations Became “People” — and How You Can Fight Back
… that let it stand de facto …
I don’t have a problem with Citizens United vs FEC, and I don’t see why unions (“The new 1%) should have a problem with it, either–they spend a lot of money on campaign ads, too. They better start spending money in a hurry because the Kochs have financed 45,000 ads in anticipation of the Nov. elections. The GOP has a 50% chance of retaking the Senate, and I no longer care if they do regain it after the damage that unions have done to Calif.
Any candidate— Republican OR Democrat– receiving Laurence Lessig’s Mayday PAC $$$ needs to be supported! They are vetted and only receive Mayday $$$ because they support repeal of Citizens United…
Bear Stearns? Seriously? A rather obvious Agent Projokeateur, I should think …
Why would anyone take stock in what Bear Stearns is selling???