Citizens United Campaign Funds Ruling Leaves Democrats Reeling

[Purveyor]

The US supreme court has delivered a fresh blow to the Democrats, already reeling from their stunning defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race, by opening the floodgates to huge corporate funding of campaigns for or against presidential and congressional candidates.

In a decision that could have a profound impact on future elections, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that barred businesses from paying for campaign adverts. The decision in what is known as the Citizens United case will allow big businesses – such those selling arms, drugs or insurance companies – that already wield influence through lobby groups to openly back favoured candidates who support their interests.

The court also struck down part of a separate campaign finance bill that barred companies and trade unions from publishing political adverts in the closing days of election campaigns.

The ruling was swiftly condemned by liberal pressure groups such as the People for the American Way, which described it as "putting corporate power above individual rights".

"It is a long established principle that the government can act in the interest of democracy to prevent corporations from pouring in billions of dollars to unduly influence elections," the group said. "Given conservative rhetoric about deference to the democratically elected branches, today's ruling is stunning".

Republicans are expected to be the principal beneficiaries of the ruling, a further blow to some Democratic party candidates in November's midterm elections who are already feeling exposed after the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, won an upset victory in Massachusetts, taking the seat left vacant by the death of Democratic icon Edward (Ted) Kennedy.

MORE...

GUARDIAN UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/21/citizens-united-supreme-court-ruling

[Blue Owl]

1. Booooooooooooo Hissssssssssssss

Just what we need -- MORE corporate influence and control.

In 2012, be sure to vote for the MONEY PARTY (which will be the only options on the ballot, mind you).

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Did anyone REALLY believe the RW SCOTUS, the majority, would rule any other way?

I am nauseated and ill..but not surprised.

[tblue]

3. RIP USA

:cry: I'll go mourn now.

I guess the one saving grace is that our beloved Teddy isn't here to see this, though I would love to hear his response.

[SunsetDreams]

4. Frankly I don't understand why it shouldn't leave every thinking American

left reeling regardless of party.

[Peacetrain]

8. I do not care where you stand on the political spectrum.. this is awful for all of us

[kenny blankenship]

5. A moment of silence, please, for the Democratic Party.

[SunsetDreams]

7. really? The 5 Conservative Judges Ruled In Favor, The 4 Liberals Voted Against.

I guess the Supreme Court is the same as the Democratic Party.

I guess the POTUS has control over how they rule.

I guess the House and Senate is the same as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oh wait they are separate branches.

[kenny blankenship]

11. What are you gibbering about?

[Ian David]

6. The full name is Citizens United Not Timid.

People shouldn't be allowed to forget that, or else they don't fully grasp the level of douchebaggery.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Guess it's time for the Dems to grow a pair and pass public financing of federal campaigns.

The House bill, H.R. 1826, The Fair Elections Now Act, has 126 co-sponsors while Senator Durbin's companion bill, S.752, has a grand total of 5 co-sponsors.

S.752

Title: A bill to reform the financing of Senate elections, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard (introduced 3/31/2009) Cosponsors (5)
Related Bills: H.R.1826
Latest Major Action: 3/31/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Sen Boxer, Barbara - 9/15/2009
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 5/14/2009
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 7/9/2009
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - 5/18/2009
Sen Specter, Arlen - 3/31/2009


H.R.1826

Title: To reform the financing of House elections, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Larson, John B. (introduced 3/31/2009) Cosponsors (126)
Related Bills: S.752
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.

[cilla4progress]

10. just do it

I agree; we are way too timid. Clearly, the odds of the less powerful EVER being treated fairly are just too remote to believe in. I see this truth now. I also see America is becoming more like a third world country every day. There are things that can be done by those in the halls of Congress and the White House to carve out as much for us as possible. I mean, these truly are desperate times.

My only quandry now is what for me to do? With this decision, the odds of a Palin-Brown ticket fronting corporations - foreign and domestic - in 2012 become much more realistic. Where will I turn? What will I do with my rage?

[dgibby]

14. Keep your eye on Haiti.

That's where we're headed if we don't clean up this mess. This is more depressing than the 8 years under Baby Bush.

[cilla4progress]

16. Certainly as depressing to me, if not more

And more disappointing. Such high hopes. I do believe Obama's heart is in the right place. He's just gotten really bad advice. And too naive. I keep remembering how as a candidate one argument against him was lack of experience. Lack of experience, naivete, call it what you will - yah, I don't think he gave the Republicans (including 5 supreme court justices) enough credit for how low they could go.

[Teaser]

13. HAHAHA!!

"grow a pair"

that's rich. priceless really.

[CK_John]

15. It has to be a constitutional amendment now, no more bills. n/t

[FormerDittoHead]

17. Or ban political advertising on TV and radio. IT COULD BE DONE.

It's not "freedom of speech" issue - you can't advertise cigarettes on TV and radio.

GET THIS: 90%+ of campaign spending is for broadcast advertising.

Public financing SOUNDS like a good idea, but the fact is that the heart of the issue is BROADCAST ADVERTISING. Eliminate that, and you've eliminated 90% of the power of wealth over truth.

They can advertise in print, canvass, junk mail, rally all they want. Who cares?

The money is in broadcast.

PS Bring back the fairness doctrine. - AGAIN - IT WAS THERE BEFORE WE CAN BRING IT *BACK*.

[Orangepeel]

18. That won't do anything about this issue.

The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent companies from buying advertising to support or oppose a candidate. Unless we get a different court ruling, it would still be unconstitutional for congress to prevent companies from doing so, no matter how elections campaigns are funded.

[Teaser]

12. uh clowns....everyone saw this coming. except you!

(this is directed to our brilliant Dem Reps).

Just like we all knew Coakley losing was a real possiblity. Except, again, you.

You clowns are dumber than the dumbest fucks I know. And I know some real dumb fucks.

If I want clowns I'll go to goddamn Ringling Brothers.

[AspenRose]

19. Whatever they use as insulation for that bubble around DC

should be put to use for terrorism or defense. It's so effective at keeping things out.