Supreme Court decision could unseat Barbara Boxer

[MrsCorleone]

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/01/supreme-court-d.html

Supreme Court decision could affect Boxer race
SacBee: Capitol Alert ^ | 1/21/10 | Kevin Yamamura

Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:03:13 PM by SmithL

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling today overturning restrictions on independent spending by corporations and labor unions could have an immediate impact this year in California's U.S. Senate race.


California state campaign finance rules already allow corporations and unions to give directly to independent expenditure campaigns without limits, so the court decision will have little impact on state contests.


But the decision overturns federal rules requiring that corporations and unions establish political action committees, or PACs, to spend on elections. Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies and an architect of California campaign finance rules, said the ruling should have a greater impact for corporations, who have access to more money and have been less adept than unions at navigating PAC rules in the past."


As we reported today, Republicans in California believe they have a shot at unseating Sen. Barbara Boxer in November and were emboldened by Scott Brown's victory Tuesday in Massachusetts. Boxer leads all three GOP hopefuls in head-to-head matchups, but she is hovering at or below the 50 percent mark. Conventionally, that's a sign that an incumbent is vulnerable, but Boxer has a history of modest support in early polling.


"It certainly changes the Boxer race," Stern said. "It means corporations, without setting up a PAC, can spend as much as they want opposing Boxer."

_________________

The Freepers, too stupid to understand the broader implications of this ruling on their lives, are jumping for joy over Boxer's possible loss: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2434232/posts

What an unholy hell all this has become.

[eleny]

1. What can Congress do to mitigate this disaster?

I heard that they can pass legislation but I haven't been around enough today to learn details. Looks like this will be a "to be continued" deal.

[FBaggins]

3. The best I think they can do is pass an immediate reporting requirement

I don't think you can pass a law limiting corporate funding right after the court just said it was unconstitutional, but maybe we can pass a law requiring all contributions/expenditures over a certain dollar amount must be reported online within... say... seven days?

[MrsCorleone]

5. I can assure you that Congress has been watching this case very

carefully. The ruling has been anticipated since the SC reheard arguments in Sept. They already understand the implications. Here's a link to Grayson's piece over at DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827940/-Help-Stop-the-Corporate-Takeover-of-Our-Democracy

Any congressional fix will need broad support, though, and it looks as if Fox and freepers are spinning the ruling as a good thing, making it tougher for average peeps to get behind a good solution.

[eleny]

15. thanks for the link!

[Babel_17]

14. Get the ethics committee back to work

http://www.google.com/search?q=ethics+committee+truce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Standards_of_Official_Conduct

Things would get ugly for us too but it would be worth it imo.

Aside from that we can push to make it harder for elected officials to do lobbying work after they are out of office. Lobbying work/conflict of interest by way of spouses and others is a really big problem too. Much greater transparency is needed there.

There's a big downside to term limits but that too might have to be considered.

Congress has its own rules about seniority and that concentrates power. A well funded, by way of special interests, and powerful incumbent is extremely hard to vote out.

With this new ruling this will be even more the case.

[DJ13]

2. Notice how these articles never talk about Blue Dogs like Harmon?

They can be just as vulnerable as the liberals now.

[MrsCorleone]

6. Corporate tools will likely be spared. Big money interests

will go after the peoples' reps and senators and replace them with more corporate tools.

[joeybee12]

4. Boxer's real problem, IMHO, is her support for Ben Nelson's anti-women

amendment...if I were still living in california, i'd sit out the vote because of that.

[jgraz]

7. Yep. Sooo many women I know are no longer B-Box fans

She's lost a LOT of votes in this state.

[KingFlorez]

8. That would just give more ammunition that Republicans were being bought by corporations

Sure, they can give the GOP millions and millions, but it certainly isn't going to make the GOP look good. Boxer will be fine.

[MrsCorleone]

10. With the media completely corporately owned, who is going to

inform the peeps of republican (or DLC) hypocrisy?

[nimvg]

9. No...

...Boxer was in trouble before the ruling.

California is in a hell of a mess right now and people are looking to take it out on someone.

Carly's not appealing to most people and Chuck Devore is about as exciting as a five pound bag of fertilizer. I don't know much about Campbell but I suspect he's no better.

If Coakley could be beaten, Boxer could be as well. One would hope she understands that.

[KingFlorez]

11. Boxer is not Coakley

You are deluding yourself if you think she is, Boxer runs hard and takes her races seriously. Like the article says, she always polls under 50% early on, so it's not a real big indicator of what will happen.

[MrsCorleone]

12. Agreed. Losing Boxer will be a huge blow to us all. nt

[FreakinDJ]

13. Wasn't Campbell behind the Energy Deregulation in Calif

if indeed it is one in the same - He's got some splainen to do

[nimvg]

16. No, He Doesn't...

...because I don't think he'll be the nominee.

The establishment here wants Carly. She damn near put HP out of business, did the same to Lucent before that. She's bad news.