Supreme Court Decision Creates Political Crisis

[babylonsister]

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/01/21-2

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2010
10:36 AM


CONTACT: Common Cause
Mary Boyle, Common Cause, [phone]
Adam Smith [phone]
Supreme Court Decision Creates Political Crisis


WASHINGTON - January 21 - The Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision today that will enhance the ability of the deepest-pocketed special interests to influence elections and the U.S. Congress, said a pair of leading national campaign finance reform organizations, Common Cause and Public Campaign. The decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which overturned the ban on independent expenditures by corporations, paves the way for unlimited corporate and union spending in elections.

"The Roberts Court today made a bad situation worse," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. "This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy. "The path from here is clear: Congress must free itself from Wall Street's grip so Main Street can finally get a fair shake," Edgar continued. "We need to change the way America pays for elections. Passing the Fair Elections Now Act would give us the best Congress money can't buy."

"This decision means that Members of Congress, fearing that they will be targeted by corporate money, will look to raise even more special interest cash than they do now," said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. "The Fair Elections Now Act, which frees federal candidates from the need to raise funds from Wall Street and other deep-pocketed interests, is the best suited, tested, and politically-positioned answer to the Roberts Court's immoral decision."

The Fair Elections Now Act (S.752 and H.R. 1826) was introduced by Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.). In the House, the bipartisan bill has attracted 124 additional cosponsors. Both bills blend small donor fundraising with public funding to reduce the pressure of fundraising from big contributors.

[theoldman]

1. So what else is new.

SCOTUS just made it legal.

[kenny blankenship]

4. This a whole NEW WORLD you woke up to today, old man.

People lament endlessly the corruption of money in politics and campaigns. They're right to complain; but the joke is that the amounts that we spend -even in the last presidential election- raised by individual donation is really very tiny compared to the money average corporations spend on their own product advertising.
As of this morning, American politics will now be dominated by a new force: direct political advertising and campaigning by corporations. Since they now are considered to have an unqualified right to free speech -without limitation as to political content and without limitation on the dollars spent propagating their views- they can spend any amount they want on ads trashing candidates who are not compliant to their wishes. No combination of flesh and blood individual citizens can even begin to match the dollar power of just one major corporation let alone a group of them together (like an industry association).

From this day on, all candidates will be overt corporatists -corporate sponsored, corporate owned- or they won't survive.

[Turbineguy]

2. Another little item

that ensures the damage done by George W Bush endures.

[KittyWampus]

3. It also allows Unions to spend. So the answer is UNIONIZE. But DU'ers will continue to bitch & moan

as usual.

[readmoreoften]

5. Yeah. Because unions have as much money as corporations.

Let's do the math:

Corporations make their profits from extracting surplus labor value.
Workers make a tiny fraction of the profits they create.
Workers give a tiny fraction of that to support their union.

This will HARM unions, because now they have to throw all their cash at candidates and lobbyists who won't do anything for them instead of funding and supporting workers who go on strike.

[KittyWampus]

7. Unions are closer to the ground and a lot more agile than corporations. Getting out the vote

is how politics starts becoming effective.

See- Coakley, Massachusetts.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. exactly. lumping unions in with corporations and acting like that's levelling the playing field is

smokescreen BS.

[Libertas1776]

6. Yeah, sure, but the

amount of cash in all of the American Union's coffers are slim pickings compared to what just a handful of corporations have, some of which are multinational and foreign owned.

[KittyWampus]

8. Again, corporations will never have the boots on the ground that Unions can muster.

what you and other DU'ers are saying is that money trumps human beings.

If you really believe that, please step aside.

[drm604]

9. They will purchase boots on the ground.

Please convince me that I'm wrong. I want to be wrong.

[Angry Dragon]

12. I agree

if you have money you can buy anything.........even people

[KittyWampus]

13. Do purchased boots on the ground also participate in General Strikes?

[drm604]

17. I want to believe that will work.

It's definitely something to try.

[Desertrose]

15. Bullshit. Its pretty clear that money buys whatever it wants.

And if you really don't believe that, please step aside.

[TheKentuckian]

10. I don't think you're taking seriously the amount of resources that we face

or hard it is to unionize, particularly since so many working class folks are brainwashed and hate unions. Hell, even here in the deep left end of the pool you'd have to say union support is fairly tepid.

In any event, even if union membership was restored to the historical high point fighting in the system may well be bringing a spoon to a gunfight.

This is a legitimate cause for plenty of bitching and moaning and then it is time to figure out how to mount some real Resistance.

[KittyWampus]

11. IMO, Unions ARE the "Resistance". So either acknowledge that or surrender. You want general strikes?

only happen with Unions.

[Desertrose]

16. Say that in a "right to work state".

Maybe unions were that once...once upon a time in a land long ago.