Citizens United (Tarloff | The Atlantic)

[struggle4progress]

... The activism of the current court has a very different tendency. And nowhere is this more evident than in the recent decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. Of its activism, there can be no doubt; the decision overtly reverses the recent Austin ruling, and is in patent conflict with two other relatively recent rulings, Beaumont and McConnell. And the clear consequence of the decision (clear, although denied, explicitly and absurdly, in the text of Justice Kennedy's decision) will be to distort political discourse and corrupt the political process. (Mind you, anyone reading the decision might come away with the impression that it merely attempts to remedy the pitiable, inequitable, longstanding social and political impotence of major corporations.)

Justice Kennedy argues that any limitation on political advocacy by corporations is a form of censorship. This is nonsense; no officer or shareholder of a corporation is prevented from expressing his views or donating his money to the extent permitted any other citizen. But the corrupting influence of money on politics is self-evident --- does anyone doubt that insurance companies will generously finance opponents of health care reform, or that oil companies will do something similar with respect to environmental legislation? --- and in addition, granting unlimited rights to corporations to spend money on behalf of specific political candidates is manifestly undemocratic; it's premised on the peculiar notion that money is speech and, as a corollary, that those with more money have the right to more and louder speech.

It's been said that during America's Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the minions of the robber barons would literally deposit sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators. In the wake of this grotesque recent Supreme Court decision, there is no longer any need for the cash to be put in sacks. There's nothing that needs to be hidden anymore. Citizens United doesn't just enable corruption, it legalizes and legitimizes it.

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/erik_tarloff/2010/01/citizens_united.php

[rhett o rick]

1. Corporations exist at our whim. Do not let this monster we created turn on us. nt

[FrenchieCat]

2. What are Teabaggers gonna do?

Who are they gonna support if they want their Money back? :shrug:

Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Ruling
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html


Obama in a speech last month pointed out.....

"Just last week, Republican leaders in the House summoned more than 100 key lobbyists for the financial industry to a “pep rally,” and urged them to redouble their efforts to block meaningful financial reform. Not that they needed the encouragement. These industry lobbyists have already spent more than $300 million on lobbying the debate this year.

The special interests and their agents in Congress claim that reforms like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency will stifle consumer choice and that updated rules and oversight will frustrate innovation in the financial markets. But Americans don’t choose to be victimized by mysterious fees, changing terms, and pages and pages of fine print. And while innovation should be encouraged, risky schemes that threaten our entire economy should not.”
source



House Republicans Come Out Against Administration’s Bank Fee:

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon also chimed in, saying that the fee is meant to “punish people,” which is a “bad idea.”

And now House Republicans have gone to bat for the big banks, claiming that implementing a bank fee would be “lunacy”:

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ): “has said any tax or fee could hinder the economic recovery and further limit the industry’s ability to extend more loans.”

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX): “How you are going to tax banks and expect them to lend more is frankly lunacy.”

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL): “The tax will only drain capital from the financial system at a time when it’s needed to create jobs and fuel economic growth.”

Rep. David Camp (R-MI): “while he and other Republicans find bonuses being paid by banks that got bailouts ‘irresponsible’ and ‘outrageous,’ they are concerned that taxing banks will hurt lending, and thus job creation.

On a more important note, all of the whining is futile, as the TARP law requires the administration to create a fee in order to recoup any of the program’s losses. The law states that some sort of revenue-raising mechanism needs to be in place by 2013, but the administration said that “the President has no intention of waiting that long.”
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/01/14/gop-bank-lunac/