The Corporatocracy was shocked at the election results of 2008

[scheming daemons]

... and so today, they employed their "Nuclear Option".


To make it so, starting in 2010, their power is never threatened again.


I know a lot of people on DU consider Obama to be a "corporate suckup"... but I think Wall Street and the big corporations are afraid of what he means to their stranglehold on this nation. The only way they could battle "movements" like Obama in 2008 that garnered $300 million in individual contributions is to get the shackles taken off of corporations' campaign spending.


They were shocked at how easily a campaign like Obama's was able to raise funds from regular folks.

They pulled the trigger today on regaining the upper hand. The conservative court took a very limited-scope case and used it to overturn 100 years of election law. This didn't happen by accident.

2008... and the incredible grass roots success of Obama is what caused it.


So... they're saying "you liberals think you and your friends were impressive in raising $300 million for Obama? Chump Change! We'll spend that per week on our candidate next time."

[DJ13]

1. They werent shocked, they control both party's

[scheming daemons]

2. But that can't control "grass roots" efforts

...and that's what Obama's campaign was. The contributions came in small chunks from millions of regular Americans.


I guarantee you the Obama was not their candidate of choice.

[DJ13]

4. ..and that's what Obama's campaign was.

He received hundreds of millions in campaign donations from the health care industry and the Wall street banks by the time he beat McCain.

I agree, at first his was truly a grass roots campaign, but Iowa cemented him as a viable candidate to corporate america and the money started pouring in.

[bridgit]

6. Correct - there remains no substitute for organization, and it was that power...

That remains in the hands of the people; and that still freaks them out the most

[jgraz]

7. Trust me, there's no corporation that's afraid of Obama.

Most of them donated to his campaign.

[KittyWampus]

11. No corporations donate money to his campaign. He did not accept PAC money.

[scheming daemons]

12. Truth doesn't matter, Kitty... they have their "Obama is a corporatist" narrative and they're

..sticking with it.

[amborin]

13. banksters & big corporations donated more to Obama than any other candidate:

Health

Obama, Barack $19,462,986
McCain, John $7,389,547
Clinton, Hillary $6,397,849
Romney, Mitt $2,283,350
Giuliani, Rudy $2,075,197
Paul, Ron $828,483
Richardson, Bill $778,170
Edwards, John $587,941
Thompson, Fred $537,429
Huckabee, Mike $491,202
Dodd, Chris $339,850
Biden, Joe $283,880
Brownback, Sam $108,580
Thompson, Tommy $67,811
Nader, Ralph $62,251
Kucinich, Dennis $54,357
Vilsack, Tom $32,800
Tancredo, Tom $31,600
Hunter, Duncan $27,930
Barr, Bob $22,550
Gilmore, Jim $15,600
Gravel, Mike $11,721
Keyes, Alan $11,600
Baldwin, Chuck $6,050

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=H


Finance Industry Campaign Donations:

Finance/Insur/RealEst

Obama, Barack $39,480,169
McCain, John $28,930,292
Clinton, Hillary $19,249,595
Romney, Mitt $13,710,157
Giuliani, Rudy $13,411,959
Dodd, Chris $5,480,286
Richardson, Bill $2,916,752
Edwards, John $2,125,162
Thompson, Fred $1,943,704
Biden, Joe $1,504,861
Huckabee, Mike $1,320,265
Paul, Ron $1,249,206
Brownback, Sam $248,637
Vilsack, Tom $175,900
Thompson, Tommy $120,409
Hunter, Duncan $109,650
Nader, Ralph $77,996
Gilmore, Jim $63,150
Kucinich, Dennis $56,910
Tancredo, Tom $53,260
Barr, Bob $39,259
Gravel, Mike $14,825
Keyes, Alan $8,901
Baldwin, Chuck $7,342
McKinney, Cynthia $4,050

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=F


and, Goldman Sachs was the #2 donor to Obama's prez campaign:


list of top donors to Obama's campaign:


Goldman Sachs $994,795 ***********
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290 ************
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132 *************
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881 *****************
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

[jgraz]

14. Thank you. It's like some of these posters just wandered in from Candyland.

Jesus, how disconnected from reality can one person be?

[FrenchieCat]

3. not completely.......

What's the difference between Democrats or Republicans.....?

Supreme Court Judges who voted to give free hand to big corporation to purchase
the next elections, since they can't do anymore Bush vs. Gores are:

Justice Alito (nominated by Bush)
Justice Roberts (nominated by Bush)
Justice Thomas (nominated by Bush)
Justice Scalia (nominated by Reagan)
Justice Kennedy (nominated by Reagan)



Supreme Court Justices who voted AGAINST giving free hand to big corporation to purchase
the next elections:

Justice Sotomayor (nominated by Obama)
Justice Ginsburg (nominated by Clinton)
Justice Breyer (nominated by Clinton)
Justine Stevens (nominated by Ford before partisanship started running amok)



Still on the court and voted "for" Bush vs. Gore

Justice Thomas (nominated by Bush)
Justice Scalia (nominated by Reagan)
Justice Kennedy (nominated by Reagan)

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. Good point. nt

[tonysam]

5. Not to the extent they control the Republican Party

The Republican Party BY DEFINITION is the party of the wealthy, of the financial elite, of Big Business. The Democratic Party has been infected with much of the neoliberal rot, but in this decision, the Democratic Party will be effectively put out of business altogether.

I wish the "corporate" rhetoric would stop, and commentators look at how utterly PARTISAN this decision is. And just in time for the mid-term elections to boot.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Fact of how we got here beyond Bush v. Gore....

Nominated by George W. Bush on On July 19, 2005



On September 22 the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts's nomination by a vote of 13 to 5, with Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein casting the dissenting votes.

Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate on September 29 by a margin of 78-22.

All Republicans and the lone Independent voted for Roberts; the Democrats split evenly, 22 for and 22 against. Roberts was confirmed by what was, historically, a narrow margin for a Supreme Court Justice.


Senate roll call:

All Republicans, included then Republican Spector voted YES,
along with Independent Jeffords (VT)

Democrats voting Yes:

Baucus (MT)

Bingaman (NM)

Byrd (WV)

Conrad (ND)

Dodd (CT)

Dorgan (ND)

Feingold (WI)

Johnson (SD)

Kohl (WI)

Landrieu (LA)

Leahy (VT)

Levin (MI)

Lieberman (CT)

Lincoln (AR)

Murray (WA)

Nelson, Ben (NE)

Nelson, Bill (FL)

Pryor (AR)

Rockefeller (WV)

Salazar (CO)

Wyden (OR)

NO votes:

Akaka (HI)

Bayh (IN)

Biden (DE)

Boxer (CA)

Cantwell (WA)

Clinton (NY)

Corzine (NJ)

Dayton (MN)

Durbin (IL)

Feinstein (CA)

Harkin (IA)

Inouye (HI)

Kennedy (MA)

Kerry (MA)

Lautenberg (NJ)

Mikulski (MD)

Obama (IL)

Reed, J. (RI)

Reid, H. (NV)

Sarbanes (MD)

Schumer (NY)

Stabenow (MI)

http://www.c-span.org/congress/roberts_senate.asp

Reid: Roberts 'didn't tell us the truth'

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that John Roberts misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings by pretending to be a moderate — and that the United States is now “stuck” with him as chief justice.


“Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was,” Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. “But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.”


Reid’s comments, which came during a wide-ranging discussion hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, reflect Democratic concerns that Roberts presented himself as a neutral arbiter of the law but has wielded a relentlessly conservative agenda. Republicans reject the attacks, saying Roberts has been a fair judge and has been consistent in his opinions.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20560.html

[diane in sf]

10. I agree, now they're going to go after the internet

[Enthusiast]

15. You make some very strong points.

And I believe you are correct.

[kickysnana]

16. Here on DU...

after the 2000 (s)election, our glorious party (snicker) reached out to us and asked what was the most important thing now. In one breath DU said stop them from appointing anti-American lifetime activist judges to the Supreme Court. As usual they ignored us.

Now our glorious party (snicker) who didn't fix the voting machine time bomb, have realized they put themselves on the scrapheap of history. There was a small window last year to grab the power and use it but they didn't and now they have lost it perhaps forever.

Our forefathers and foremothers weep.