International rights body criticizes US Supreme Court ruling on election spending

[struggle4progress]

Source: Associated Press via WHNT-19

3:56 PM CST, January 22, 2010

VIENNA (AP) — ... The criticism comes from a senior official of the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The head of its office that monitors democratic practices says the ruling effectively lifting limits on election spending by corporations and unions "threatens to further marginalize candidates without strong financial backing or extensive personal resources" ...



Read more: http://www.whnt.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-us-election-spending,0,5630828.story

[panzerfaust]

1. Nice would it be, if the MSM took note of this -

- oh, that's right, they ARE huge multinational corporate "persons"

[Mari333]

2. they have been blacking out news for a while now

reports of the 2 wars? nothing. reports of this article? nothing.
keep the people uninformed, that is what they have been doing for a long long time.

[santamargarita]

3. That's why they're called the Corporate Media...

they are a threat to Democracy!

[toopers]

4. Or course, we are not suppose to be a democracy . . .

EOM

[Uncle Joe]

37. They're even a threat to the democratic republic. n/t

[No Elephants]

97. Yes, we are. A democracy within a republic, a sovereign nation of many sovereign states, etc.

[toopers]

108. Ok, tell me where the word democracy is mentioned in the . . .

founding papers. We are suppose to be a representative republic.

[24601]

117. True that. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. And I'd bet

that 50% or more don't even know the difference.

[dipsydoodle]

7. You might find its even worse than that

You could reasonably expect that when you go into the BBC News website you get what we get in the UK.

Well - dream on cos you don't. I discovered that when I was in OH in November. Our true home page is inaccessible from the USA. It's easy to check - the BBC are now allowed to advertise in the UK apart from which the adverts you'll find are priced in US$.......lol.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Interesting.

[mdmc]

32. could you provide a link to the bbc uk home page?

or a screen shot?

[dipsydoodle]

80. Link won't work because

it auto subverts. Here I use : http://news.bbc.co.uk/ but if you use that you get the world service - that's what happened to me in OH. How do you do a screen shot ? I'm off out will sort later.

[mdmc]

85. thanks

[Christa]

40. I don't understand?

I read the BBC news everyday?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

[Ruby the Liberal]

45. They can target what they present based on your location

Example easy to see is the clock on the upper right. It is displaying local time.

Also note that the US markets lead the quotes for US people as does the top news stories (US based).

[dixiegrrrrl]

49. S/He is saying what YOU read on BBC site is not the same site that is available

to people in Britain.
That there is a BBC site accessible to us in the USA and a different site accessible to those in
Britain, or perhaps even those in the rest of Europe...

[fascisthunter]

50. so Americans are getting a censored form of BBC news

wonderful

[DKRC]

17. And the majority of Americans, who aren't following

all of this, believe that information blackout only happens to the Chinese, N Koreans, and Russians.

[KakistocracyHater]

91. it says 3:18 GMT & it's 7:22PM here for me, link might be working?

*

[wordpix]

19. BUT----we need to know about Lady Gaga and how Brad & Angelina are doing!

:sarcasm: :puke: :evilgrin:

[pscot]

36. Hey

Leave Lady Gaga alone.

[valerief]

94. News is for bad weather, violent criminals, and Jesus. nt

[Auggie]

33. Maybe if a 100,000 or so marched in Washington D.C....

[liberation]

65. Then the media would report it as 100 hoodlums disturbing the peace for no apparent reason.

[FailureToCommunicate]

68. And say it was "Vaguely reminiscent of the 60's"

[Hekate]

109. And in the crowd of 100,000 they'd photograph the 6 people wearing tie-dye shirts and ratty hair...

I've been in a lot of marches from 2000 to 2008. Media coverage was very discouraging.

Hekate

[Nay]

81. Riiiight! We fielded 600,000 to stop the Iraq war, and later, at home,

we were treated to "news" stories about how a few thousand protested. Got about 30 seconds.

As a person who grew up during the Vietnam War and protested that one, too, I can only be dismayed at how protests were treated back then as to how they are treated now. It was considered a serious thing back in the 60's if people (even if they were only mostly college kids) felt strongly enough to protest. Now, it depends -- if you're 5 teabaggers, Fox follows you around. If you're 600,000 against a war the corps want, well, you get marginalized.

[No Elephants]

98. And the Supremes would care about a demonstration because....?

Heck, this is the court that decided the 2000 election, only more conservative. If they didn't care what people thought then, they sure won't care now.

[Hekate]

111. The 2004 March for Women's Lives I went to had over 1 million women and men in the streets of DC

We know because the organizers were extremely organized, and they kept count.

The response from the Bush admin was a huge yawn.

The 2005 Peace March in DC was likewise huge, though I no longer remember how many were supposed to have been there. We marched past the White House and yelled "Liar! liar! liar!" but of course the occupant was not at home.

I don't know what effect we ultimately had, even though certain Democratic politicians came and gave speeches to us.

Hekate

[naaman fletcher]

82. Blowback.. There is a lesson to be learned here

This is a terrible ruling, but why did it come about? It came about because of the temendous over-reach of Mccain-feingold. This country was built on individuals pooling resources to make their political views heard. The politicians hate that. It is worth noting that McCain and his congressional counterpart Shays were both pretenders who were the regular targets of political speech. So they sought to ban it. They sought to make it illegal for a couple of guys to get together to criticize them. So, the plaintiff in this case was totally right. He wasn't doing anything that the founding fathers didn't do. He challenged a bad law, and look what happened.. it gave the assholes on the court an excuse to roll back a good law. The lesson: don't support bad laws for the sake of expediency.

[The Stranger]

89. McCain-Feingold doesn't prevent "a couple of guys to get together and criticize government."

It prevents CORPORATIONS, in some cases, MASSIVE, MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR, GLOBAL MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, from directly injecting money into politicians' bank accounts.

This is the Globalization-Neoliberal dream.

[naaman fletcher]

113. yes, it also prevents a couple of guys from getting together and being heard.

[The Stranger]

116. No, it doesn't.

[No Elephants]

99. This country was built on individuals pooling their resources to be heard? Got anything to support

that statement? Any examples?

Anyway, a corporation like ATT is not a group of individuals pooling resources to be heard.

[naaman fletcher]

114. Yes, the federalist papers.

And I agree that ATT is not a group of individuals pooling resources to be heard. However, McCain-Feingold banned a group of individuals pooling resources to be heard.

[FailureToCommunicate]

115. Oh, good, bring up Alexander Hamilton, et al. Progressives in his day HATED that

he sought to enshrine the new American oligarchy as a permanent feature of government!
You could trace control of our democracy by the rich and privileged directly back to his Federalist Party and the Wall Street money powers.

[stellad]

5. Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves

[Little Star]

6. k&r n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. Call in to the networks as much as you can

get yourself on air and complain

[jasi2006]

10. Also, get it Rachel and Keith. They know how to blow the trumpet. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. yes

[struggle4progress]

15. That's talking to the choir. This decision should enable us to reach further than that

[No Elephants]

100. To other Democrats, maybe.

[tblue]

24. And radio shows.

It's not that hard to get on, and radio reaches mucho people.

[The Stranger]

12. This impact of this decision is extraordinary. American politics is changed forever.

I don't think it can be overemphasized. And this impact is matched only by the brazenness of the result-oriented, self-righteous and dangerous majority currently running the court.

I have some ideas for Congress, and, amazingly, John McCain, of all people, may be the 60th vote for the Democratic "minority" to defeat a filibuster, and get saving legislation passed.

[struggle4progress]

14. I take one day at a time. I don't know for how long this changes the political landscape

[The Stranger]

51. It will last until that neocon majority can be disassembled on the court.

As far as how it changes, read the opinion and read the statutes it strikes. They didn't trim campaign finance laws or dilute their impact, they reached right into it and cut out its heart.

[SpiralHawk]

13. "The Supremos are skanky republicon lackeys." - The World

"Too bad for America and Americans, to be plagued with an anti-American Supreme Court of Republicon Corporate kissasses."

- The World

[groundloop]

16. It's going to be extraordinarily difficult to write any legislation to overturn this

Given that the Supreme Court has spoken, any legislation which can be seen as infringing on the rights of corporate "citizens" will likely be deemed unconstitutional. Maybe, just maybe, someone in Congress has the brains to write legislation that will stand up.

The sad thing is that I'm certain our founding fathers in no way intended for this to be how the Bill of Rights was interpreted. How could they have possibly had the vision to see what giant albatrosses multi-national corporations have become. There's no way they would have meant for those entities to be able to purchase elections in this manner.

[Delphinus]

23. Some sites

are talking constitutional amendments - would that work?

[Occulus]

72. Based on the topic of their ruling, I'd say that might be the only way to remedy this

and the only possible remedy by Amendment is to revoke corporate personhood entirely. We have to state, clearly and undeniably, that corporations are not persons for any purpose, period.

You know, the more I think about this decision, the more hopeful I am that that will be the final outcome. This ruling may necessitate exactly what many here have been saying for some time now- corporate personhood needs to go. This ruling gives us a damn good reason to revoke it.

[KakistocracyHater]

90. Fairness Doctrine is needed more & more, it takes it from a different angle,

if taking a direct route is stopped, take another. I hope they try both simultaneously, amendments & F.D.

[No Elephants]

101. A Constitutional amendment would work, but I don't think a controversial amendment has

been adopted since the 1950's. Most don't make it out of Congress, let alone through the state adoption process. A number of them are still hanging out there in adoption limbo, like the ERA from, I think, the 1970's. And, with all the disintegration of agreement on basic values, people have grown increasingly reluctant to open up the Constitution for reconsideration. You might find all kinds of things up for consideration. Scary to contemplate.

[pscot]

38. Well, Alan Grayson

already has 5 (count 'em 5) pieces of legislation in the hopper. Call your congress critter and urge them to support Grayson's effort to walk this back. Republicon or Democrat, this is not good for any politician.

[bemildred]

74. How about we limit corporations to enumerated rights, and then enumerate them?

E.g. the right to make contracts, and other economic empowerments. After all, corporations are creatures of law, the Constitution has nothing to say of them as such.

[No Elephants]

102. That had always been corporate law 101. It went something like:

"Inasmuch as corporations are creatures of the legislature, not natural creatures, corporations have only the rights the legislature grants them."

This so-called originalist court just did something neither the founders nor any legislature ever contemplated.

[bemildred]

110. Yes, it seems like the elephant in the room to me.

No offense to you personally.

[NecklyTyler]

18. So John Roberts is now carrying the torch for Bush 43

Bush the lesser did everything in his power to embarrass the United States on the world stage, now John Roberts and Samuel Alito are carrying on the tradition.

Hail the Republican stacked court!

[wordpix]

20. just remember a lot of Dems supported his nomination - Alito's, too

They're ALL blameworthy

[abq e streeter]

60. only 4 dems voted for Alito, but TWENTY TWO voted for Roberts( list below)

and Scalia was confirmed unanimously...UNANIMOUSLY . I mean, WTF? So your point is, sadly, very valid. Our spineless Democratic "leaders" have sold us out time and time again, and this is the result...

Here’s the 22 Democrats who voted to confirm John Roberts Jr. to be the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court: ( Leahy and Feingold??? Once again, WTF?)
Max Baucus (D - MT)
Jeff Bingaman (D - NM)
Robert Byrd (D - WV)
Thomas Carper (D - DE)
Kent Conrad (D - ND)
Christopher Dodd (D - CT)
Byron Dorgan (D - ND)
Russell Feingold (D - WI)
Tim Johnson (D - SD)
Herb Kohl (D - WI)
Mary Landrieu (D - LA)
Patrick Leahy (D - VT)
Carl Levin (D - MI)
Joseph Lieberman (D - CT)
Blanche Lincoln (D - AR)
Patty Murray (D - WA)
Bill Nelson (D - FL)
Ben Nelson (D - NE)
Mark Pryor (D - AR)
Jay Rockefeller (D - WV)
Ken Salazar (D - CO)
Ron Wyden (D - O

And not a single damn one of em stood up to arguably the most corrupt; the most out and out fascist leaning one of em all, Scalia.

[No Elephants]

103. Thing is, on paper, Alito was highly qualified and Roberts was super duper

qualified. And they lied and fudged during their confirmation hearings, especially Roberts, who did so with a charming, gracious, huge smile (unlike the dour Alito and his weeping wife).


Lord forgive me, but I cannot stand Roberts.

[slampoet]

21. When have you EVER heard of an International reply to a US SCOTUS decision ?

There was a bit of chatter about Bush vs Gore but other than that i can't recall it in my lifetime.

[jtylerpittman]

22. Americans will not care what a foreign body says about our domestic politics

[tblue]

25. Right. Will they care if foreign corps buy our politicians?

You're so right. So many Americans don't get it.

[jtylerpittman]

27. We are still Isolationist

[pscot]

39. Xenophobic imperialists

Hardly isolationist.

[struggle4progress]

26. That, of course, is true. But this is yet another warning about our ever-declining global prestige

[jtylerpittman]

28. I dont think many Americans care what other countries think of us

[struggle4progress]

31. I understood you the first time

[RC]

62. That is because most Americans have not travailed anywhere around this country, let alone to

any foreign countries. They have no clue except maybe for PBS's British comedy shows that the rest of the world may be any different than here.


Foreign languages is something you study in school. Nobody speaks those anymore, right? :sarcasm:

[Zhade]

63. Only selfish fucking douchebags don't care what others think.

NT!

[fascisthunter]

29. really? Because right now due to this decision, foreign entities can influence our government

did you not know that? I would think those with nationalistic pride would be a bit bothered by that notion.

Also, Americans do care what other countries have to say, not all but enough do.

[jtylerpittman]

30. see how well that works for a canidate who take forign money

[JoeyT]

112. Um. Pretty well, I'd think.

After all, how are you going to track it?

#1: All they'll have to do is hide who the real owners are.

#2: This frees corporations to run ads. The politicians don't have to accept it. They can denounce those evil furrners running all those attack ads, and even denounce the ads themselves. Meanwhile the ads get run over and over and over on the TVs of people with the attention span of a gnat on coke.

#3: It would be possible for a foreign entity to buy a corporation and run ads solely to make the candidate they're running ads for look bad. e.g. Country/group X buys company Y and runs ads for candidate Z knowing that when it comes out that candidate Z is being endorsed by X it'll make him/her look bad. I'd be willing to bet this happens a few times in the next election. It'll work even better if they make a law to prevent foreign campaign assistance. The more unsavory the group, the more effective it will be.
It's not like someone's willingness to pull this is in question. This is pretty tame by Rove standards.

Edited to add: "Vote Bob Smith(D) for congress! He's a swell guy! This ad paid for by Al Qaeda." No matter how much Smith yells about how much he hates Al Qaeda, he'll forever be associated with 'em. Using AQ is a joke, but there are plenty of groups/countries that being even tenuously associated with them would scuttle a political career. Think "Pallin' around with terrists" on steroids.

[Frank Booth]

47. I'm more worried about domestic entities influencing our government.

There are plenty of really, really bad and powerful organizations that have the benefit of being from the Good Old USA.

[customerserviceguy]

34. Agreed

If anything, it may outrage many of them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

43. "Them?"

[customerserviceguy]

54. Americans, of course

What part of that wasn't clear?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. Which Americans? All of them? 84.9%? 56.3%? And are you among them or not? -nt

[customerserviceguy]

56. The only percentage that counts

is the 20% in the mushy middle. We always have about 40% who are always on the progressive side, about 40% who are on the conservative side, and the folks in the middle who simply want to feel comfortable. They don't have any permanent political ideology that is coherent or thought out (even with flawed thinking processes), they just want to watch American Idle and be safe and warm.

On one hand, we will have progressives saying, "Look what the rest of the world feels about the terrible thing our Supreme Court did," and on the other hand, we will have the reich wing saying, "Look what those weenie foreigners, who can't even run their own societies, are trying to look down their noses and tell us what to do!"

If the debate is framed that way, it doesn't look good for our side. We have to make sure that reform (in the form of a Constitutional amendment) is right for America because a large majority of Americans believe that.

[No Elephants]

104. Yep, bc Republikkkans have trained them to discount, and have contempt for, world opinion.

And Democrats never did enough to counter that propaganda.

[scentopine]

35. No fear, our dem leadership knows how keep corporations in check...

They will fight to the death to return the country to its citizens!!!

hello?

anybody there?

[scentopine]

41. two men/women cannot marry but corporations have citizen rights

the really bad thing about this is it forces a legislative solution which will offers an opportunity to give corporations even more influence and privileges - regardless of the outcome of new legislation and constitutional amendments.

In other words, just by having the debate whether corporations are citizens, corporations win. As we saw with health care reform - there will be no resolution to this campaign reform problem without a MASSIVE give-away to corporations.

Corporations no longer have a foot in the door - they have their whole body. The debate will simply further desensitize us to the insanity that has become US legislative process. We are becoming numb to the abuse of power.

Watch and see what happens... we can honestly now say we are a fascist government with no risk of exaggeration.

[skepticscott]

86. The only problem with that is that

this case has nothing to do with corporate "personhood", no matter how much you may dislike the degree to which corporations in this country have been granted that status.

[No Elephants]

105. Maybe two corporations can marry?

I guess that would be a merger.

[Joey Liberal]

42. I fear for this country. nt

[Frank Booth]

46. Remember when the US used to be the world leader on issues like this?

Now, the rest of the world is scared of how crazy this country is becoming.

It's entirely possible that within 20-30 years we'll be one of those North Korea-type countries that the rest of the world can't comprehend, that sustains itself on relentless propaganda and a brainwashed populace. Our society will look much different from North Korea's of course, but it will equally deranged.

[benld74]

48. Thats USa folk, back to being laughing stock of the world

The LAnd of the Corporations and Home of the COporations

[Pangolino]

52. Maybe not the laughing stock - maybe a powerful servant?

If I were an influential businessman or member of a foreign government, I'd be on the phone now looking into starting an "America International" corporation (depending on what I'd want done, or what my allies would want done, this could be a short or long-term project). The first task would be to buy Democrats in order to block any potential dissenting legislation (i.e. Grayson's proposals). As it stands, I'm not sure why this Supreme Court decision doesn't mean the U.S. just gave up its sovereignty.

[Auggie]

53. +1

And a good first post it is!

[Ter]

55. As much as I disagree with this ruling

Other nations should butt out. It's for Americans to criticize.

[CJCRANE]

57. Other nations should butt out...except when their foreign corporations - they can run political ads

[Hansel]

64. Good. Then I know you will make sure none of the corporations sticking

their noses in our campaigns are funded at all by foreign investors.

Whether you like it or not, this ruling impacts the world. Corporations are global now. So other countries have a right to criticize what corporations are allowed to do because it could just as easily impact them. That is what is so f*cked up about this ruling.

[liberation]

67. Why?

I assume the whole concept of people being entitled to their opinion must be a fascinating mystery to you...

[Ter]

106. This is a sovereign nation and the rulling is our concern

Just the name "International rights body" sounds frightening. Sounds like a globalist organization which supports One World Government to me.

[Lorien]

95. Isolationist much?

It's a global economy and a world where we are all interconnected, like it or not. We stepped in in WWII as well, didn't we? Human beings are supposed to care about one another regardless of the soil they were born on.

[Ter]

107. No one is dying

If another country's laws are incredibly unjust, like executing women who cheat on their husbands, then I agree. This isn't one of those laws. We need to go back to a watered down form of isolationism. Dennis Kucinich agrees.

[Maineman]

58. Corporations are not persons

Here is another example of why corporations should not be funding (buying) U.S. politicians.

"This week, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia — the largest shareholder of News Corp outside the Murdoch family — endorsed Rupert Murdoch’s son James to succeed the elder Murdoch when he retires. Alwaleed, King Abdullah’s nephew, is Saudi Arabia’s richest person and the world’s 22nd wealthiest (Murdoch is number 132). He holds large stakes in many American companies, including Citi. The prince met with Murdoch last week to discuss a “future potential alliance with News Corp,” and he told Charlie Rose Wednesday about his respect for the Murdoch dynasty.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PERSONS !!!

[LiberalLovinLug]

59. Another victory for Fascism

and another nail in the coffin for Democracy.

This will just further the madness of both parties scrambling over themselves to please their corporate masters. The next election is going to be one ugly ad after another. And the party that bends over the farthest will reap this new boundless treasure.

The shrinking unions and non-profit progressive organizations will be able to spend limitlessly just like the multinationals. So its fair right? :eyes:

The founders would be rolling in their graves.

[Reader Rabbit]

61. Sadly, this will make certain people feel that the ruling was correct.

Anything the "furriners" don't like must be a good thing here in 'Merica.

[alp227]

66. The Supreme Court has really really hit some bad PR right here.

You can tell that American democracy is crumbling when a EUROPEAN human rights organization knows democracy better than the U.S. Supreme Court.

[AllyCat]

69. Clearly, these furners' don't understand what makes a democracy

We need a solid capitalistic, corporatist stronghold on government to make sure we spread freedom and democracy to all.

Do I need the little sarcasm thingy?

[HillGal]

70. I wasn't posting here during the 2008 election, so can I ask a question, Obama received a lot

of donations from overseas during his campaign, so did people take issue with that?

[CJCRANE]

71. You're a Fox News watcher aren't you? That isn't true. Check it out on Snopes.

I bet you've never heard of the Alaska Permanent Fund or the AIP either.

[HillGal]

73. No I didn't get it from the source you cited, but Newsweek lied too about the donations?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

[CJCRANE]

76. That article mentions at most half a dozen instances.

That doesn't match up with your statement in your previous post.

[BrklynLiberal]

88. Actually the only "foreign" donation that article mentions is a large purchase

of Obama Tshirts by some brothers in the Gaza strip. The money was returned when they found out the source.

[laylah]

75. Well that was short and sweet. nt

[winyanstaz]

77. They know fascism when they see it..

[wake.up.america]

78. Simply put, the vast majority of Americans are getting screwed...,

and it's going to get worse.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

79. When it really does come down to it the money in the system is damaging ......

human rights, on a real epic scale.

[Overseas]

83. K&R. //nt

[sam sarrha]

84. i just made a comment on the link page.. under George Washington's name

George Washington
Winston Salem, NC
3 min ago
so now Multinational Corporations with questionable motives can now influence elections, elect corporate Sycophants who will appoint more Traitors like the ones that did this.?... "i told you so... no one ever listens to me except Tom Jefferson"
______________________________________________________
we need over rule this, to Filibuster the ReThuglickeins by reading the Constitution over and over in shifts 24/7 till it is repealed..

[BrklynLiberal]

87. Since when have the repukes given a crap about what the rest of the world thinks?

[burning rain]

92. Whadda them Yurpeens know anyhow?

Them's a buncha freedom-hatin' socialists.

[valerief]

93. Europe, will you invade us and make us free??? nt

[No Elephants]

96. Well, we all know what Republicans think of the opinion of anyone who is not American.

They don't even want the Supremes to look at the law of other countries.

[New Dawn]

118. K&R