Look at all the FauxNews followers, parroting the charlatans of the right, saying the Supreme Court's decision to overturn 100 years of campaign finance law is a victory for the First Amendment. Never mind that the Amendment is supposed to protect PEOPLE. Never mind that Big Businesses certainly AREN'T motivated by the same desires as the vast majority of Americans. Never mind that all the members of said corporations have the same right to free speech as the rest of us. Never MIND that the Repugnican party itself spent the last... 20 years? Fighting against what they call "judicial activism" but now find this ruling acceptable. here's a quote from the RNC's 2008 platform:
"Judicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public. This must stop."
After the story broke, Disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was immediately out shoveling the ridiculous argument that the ruling "leveled the playing field" for the middle class, because now anyone could get funding from any corporation to get elected. As if those people won't be beholden to such corporations. As if we didn't ALREADY have enough special interest money tainting our democracy.
Think of all the idiots right now trumpeting this as a way to reduce the power of special interests, when in fact, it frees them up completely.
In an opposing interview, former Common Cause President and current Democracy 21 President Fred Werthheimer pointed out:
"The Court reversed decisions from 1990, 2003, and 2007 without any changed circumstances to justify their abrupt reversals. The only change we've had is in the makeup of the court. And the Supreme Court is not supposed to issue deciisons based on who happens to be on the Supreme Court for the moment." [bold script is mine]
From the Common Cause Website:
"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."
And from teh Democracy 21 Website:
"Today's decision turns back the clock to the nineteenth century, eliminating a national policy to prevent the use of corporate wealth to corrupt government decisions - a policy that has been in existence for more than a century.
Members of Congress have passed and Presidents have signed numerous laws over the years to prevent "influence-buying" corruption of our government. These laws have consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Today, five Justices issued a decision that will empower "influence-buying" corruption.
In the name of the Constitution, five Justices have substituted their pro-corporate policy views for the anti-corruption policy views of the representatives elected by citizens to establish our national policies under our constitutional system of government.
This decision will have a devastating impact on the ability of citizens to believe that their government is acting on their behalf, instead of advancing the interests of the nation's corporations at their expense. "
Fundamentally, in a government of the people- let's call it a democracy or a republic, all the people have a voice. Even the owners and stockholders of big businesses. But now, unless you have $5 or $10 to burn in every future election to make your voice heard, you won't have a voice at all.
My proposal? In the same way some feel we can "define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," so we should also "define political entity as those persons in possession of a birth certificate,
• An original U.S. birth certificate,
• An certification of birth issued by the Department of State,
• A U.S. hospital record of birth made at the time of birth,
• Institutional admission papers from a nursing home, skilled nursing care facility or other
We need to get started people. It really is a serious blow to our freedoms...
Read more at: