Our political system changed for the worse and became less democratic when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 to lift the ban on political spending by corporations and labor unions. The vote was 5-4. Justice John Roberts joined the conservative bloc to provide the deciding vote. The decision is explained and posted here on the Federal Elections Commission’s website.*
Lloyd Lofthouse, our frequent commentator and friend, wrote the following commentary about the ongoing and disastrous influence of big money in elections:
Private companies becoming citizens and doing this stuff is nothing new.
“But for 100 years, corporations were not given any constitutional right of political speech; in fact, quite the contrary. In 1907, following a corporate corruption scandal involving prior presidential campaigns, Congress passed a law banning corporate involvement in federal election campaigns. That wall held firm for 70 years.” …
“Then came Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 First Amendment decision in 2010 that extended to corporations for the first time full rights to spend money as they wish in candidate elections — federal, state and local. The decision reversed a century of legal understanding, unleashed a flood of campaign cash and created a crescendo of controversy that continues to build today.”
“Citizens United is a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization in the United States founded in 1988. In 2010, the organization won a U.S. Supreme Court case known as Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down as unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections. The organization’s current president and chairman is David Bossie.[1]”
“Dark Money: Citizens United unleashed unlimited spending in our elections, and groups can now spend hundreds of millions without disclosing their sources of funding. We advocate for greater transparency in election spending.”
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics/influence-big-money/dark-money
*The FEC commentary begins with this paragraph about the Citizens United decision:
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that held that corporations could be banned from making electioneering communications. The Court upheld the reporting and disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The Court’s ruling did not affect the ban on corporate contributions.
I do not understand the last sentence of the paragraph, which contradicts everything that precedes it as well as the practical effect of the CU decision. If there are any lawyers out there who can explain this apparent contradiction, I welcome your comments.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The way I read that is that it suggests corporations can give all the money they want to any cause they want if they report it. “..the reporting and disclaimer requirements…” were the part that was upheld in Citizens Untied.
Perhaps I am incorrect? If I am correct, political opponents should be able to hang various donations around the neck of an opponent if a person running for office had the cash or the journalistic support.
The way I read it is the sky’s the limit on what they can spend on PACs but not directly on campaigns. In other words, the Roberts Court has always been full of it.
Roberts has always been full of himself.
Very reminiscent of British royalty.
Big money is a blight that infects everything it touches. It drowns out the voice and will of the people, and it ultimately undermines democracy. Unless we can figure out a way to contain the influence of big money, there won’t be much civil society left. As long as elections can have unlimited amounts of money in them, big money will generally win and continue to use its outsized influence to destroy all things public.
The Citizens United put the lie to the pretense by Roberts that he is not an extremist just like his five partners in crime.
He’s actually worse than the others because he is a dishonest fake.
He’s better pray to his god that there is no hell, because if there is, he’s got both feet already in.
SDP: I wish you would be more direct in your declarations of condemnation. I hardly know hoe you feel about Roberts
I’ll let Roberts’ god do the condemning.
I’m just making a suggestion of how Roberts might help himself through prayer.
Even if there is a Hell now. Perhaps if he prays enough that there is not. His god will close it up before Roberts meets his maker (Satan)
As I understand it, the common understanding of Hell from a Christian viewpoint has arisen out of Dante’s Inferno. John gets carried away with an apocalyptic vision, but he is a different animal. He’s trying to sustain a small Christian community in the midst of persecution. I need someone from a Jewish tradition to highlight the lack of a classic Hell tradition. It would be nice to know that there is some ultimate system of justice, but if there is I doubt it is anything like we may wish for. We are a vicious species.
Roberts recently wondered aloud about why the legitimacy of the Court has taken a big hit and tried to blame it on the public when he said “you don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is”
Roberts is certainly smart enough to understand that the criticism of the Court is not just coming from Joe know nothing Public but also from folks like Roberts former teacher at Harvard Law school, Laurence Tribe, who said the Majority (including Roberts) had taken to using “alternate facts” (aka lies) to support their opinion in the Kennedy case. For Roberts to pretend that the Court
itself is not responsible for the legitimacy crisis is simply dishonest: breathtakingly so.
If he actually had any respect for the Court , to say nothing of sekf respect, he would resign and let Biden nominate his replacement. But he won’t because he’s still got a Constitution to shred.
There is a Hugo and Nebula Award winning book series written by Martha Wells titled “The Murderbot Diaries.”
My comment here isn’t a review of the series. But I’ve read most of them.
In this comment I’m going to focus on a major plot point: corporate governance vs democracy.
This SF series takes place in the future and the main character, a cyborg slave owned by a corporation in a sector of the known human occupied galaxy controlled totally by corporations that operate more like countries (these corporations even waging wars with each other) where profit is king even if it’s against the rules. Just don’t get caught by other corporations that may lose profits if another corporation breaks those rules.
Even corporate employees that are not slaves like the major character have little or no rights. They are indentured employees often for life.
Outside of the corporate rim are independent planets free of corporate influence. One of the free planets that occupies an important plot thread in this series is outside of the corporate area and is a democracy.
RE: the Q at the end of this post: I believe they’re talking about PAC’s. Tillman Act prevented direct corporate contributions to campaigns in 1907. That prohibition was extended to unions in 1943 [Smith-Connally Act]. PACs have been around since 1943; the first was formed by the CIO right after the ‘43 law. One ‘70s reform law made it easier for all interest groups– including, finally, corporations– to form them. Campaign laws tightened after Watergate, but loosened again in ’78, in a way that encouraged end-runs around law [‘soft $’ to candidates tho supposedly prohibited]. Enron et al scandals focused the issue again in late ‘90s; restrictions were passed in 2002. Throughout, PACs were the vehicle.
Cit-United & SpeechNow [SuperPACs] decisions of 2010 got rid of parts of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited political campaign expenditures from corporate & union general treasuries– but kept in the ”direct” part. So organizations could again contribute to candidates as well as party-bldg activities, ads, etc– just not “directly”– in other words, still through PACs. Plus, as we know, got rid of limits on contributions, period– but hey, only “independent contributions” are allowed! That means donor is forbidden to cooperate, consult, or act in concert with candidate or party except via public media! [?!– The ‘Wise Three Monkeys’ principle operates here, obviously].
The right to free speech protects the individual from the power of the govt. By ruling that associations of individuals have identical right to free speech as individuals, SCOTUS pits the individual—and his/her vote—against the power of associations of individuals, including corps with financial assets exceeding those of many of the world’s nations. Their amassed financial influence on candidates, parties, & elections easily overrides the natl public interest and the will of the voters. Otherwise known by anyone incl the most ‘layman’ of voters as corrupt govt. These are decisions that illustrate one of the main precepts in the wannabe-autocracy/ oligarchy playbook: “Get control of the courts.” The power of the govt is now manipulated by those “associations of individuals” – so freedom of speech—in this contorted new application—no longer exists for the individual.
Yes.
Speaking of the Wise Monkeys, my fave part of Cit-United/ SpeechNow decisions [from Wikipedia, my emphasis]: “the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience’s perceptions… ‘There is no such thing as too much speech.’ The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny.” That first monkey must be very blind indeed.
Republicans seem to understand this principle– that associations of individuals are far more influential, $speech-wise, than individuals, and thus can overly influence the govt—but only as it relates to unions. It’s an anachronism with roots in early 1940s, when union influence on elections was seen to be out of line, & reined in [as it had already been in 1907 for corporations]. The pop-Rep POV also stems from the supposed overreach of the 1959 US Steel strike, which they (illogically) blame for the speedup in offshoring of mfg starting in late ‘70s.
Today, when unions rep only 7% of workers, and pubsector union campaign donations are dwarfed by corporate PACs, it’s laughable. John Q Republicans are utterly cowed by corporations & fear any demand for workers’ rights will disappear jobs… Still I often wonder if there isn’t some glimpse there of possible common ground, based on their understanding of the basic concept, and how it might be reined in by govt.
It’s kind of funny.
DeSantis has some $200 million in campaign contributions but it’s not going to help him pay for the inevitable damages in the legal fraud suit that was just brought by the immigrants he trafficked to Martha’s Vineyard.
As per his usual approach to bullying, he bullied the immigrants because he thought he could do it with impunity, but he bullied the wrong people this time.
Ronny boy has met his match and a bunch of Venazuelan immigrants are going to kick that little elf across the Potomac.
One can only imagine the amount of shredding and email and text deletion that is currently going on in the governor’s office.
But unfortunately for DeSantis, the other side already has all the incriminating evidence they need in the form of brochures given to the immigrants.
And note to Ron: with data backup systems in place, it’s very difficult to delete emails and other electronic data without a trace — and it’s not the crime but the coverup that will get you.
The official DeSantis response (presumably the basis for his defense) is that “the immigrants went voluntarily, as proved by the waiver that they signed”
I thought DeSantis went to Yale and Harvard Law school, not Trump University night school.
If the waiver you sign was based on false pretenses, its not worth the paper it’s printed on.
Any lawyer with a clue would know that.
“There was no collusion. The immigrants were declassified. They went voluntarily” — Ron DeTrumpis
Aka Ron DeSadist
DeSantis the Sadist
DeSantis is a sadist
Who relishes the pain
Of immigrants he hatest
Who energize his brain