SCOTUS to the 99%: Screw you people

Yesterday, our own US Supreme Court took ur, all of us, the entire nation, yet further down the deep, dark hole--the money hole--in our politics. It was huge, ugly news for the country and an extremely dark day for the nation:

Supreme Court's abomination: How the McCutcheon decision will destroy American politics

In case you haven't been following this or aren't aware of what was possibly going down:

“Money talks,” Elvis Costello once observed, “and it’s persuasive.” The belief that this is especially true in the world of politics led to the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act. In the aftermath of Watergate the FECA was strengthened in an attempt to limit the corrupting influence of money on politics, and, until 2010, the Supreme Court largely upheld Congress’s power to do so.

That year the Citizens United case, which essentially found that the free speech rights of corporations were more important than legislative attempts to keep money from corrupting the political process, occasioned a great deal of outrage. But that case marked merely the beginning of what is likely to prove to be a series of increasingly successful assaults on campaign finance laws.

And now, Wednesday, the next blow to attempting to keep the rich from being able to buy politicians as effortlessly as they purchase anything else has been struck by McCutcheon v. FEC, a Supreme Court case dealing with limits on how much money individuals can contribute to candidates.

McCutcheon has now struck down overall limits on individual campaign contributions. This latest outburst of judicial activism in the struggle to render campaign finance laws completely toothless is merely accelerating a historical process that is coming to seem almost inevitable.

So it's been decided by the Court and now the wealthy and corporations have even fewer limitations on the amounts of their millions and billions of dollars they can use to buy, well, every legislator and every possible government bill and law and so, ultimately, our own government, even more than they're already doing now.

And no, it's not that it wasn't unexpected. Too many of us thought this Court might well come down on the side of that same wealthy and corporations but still, here it is. The worst we thought might happen, has, in fact, occurred.

Fortunately, not everyone on the Court voted for the 1%. It just wasn't enough of them.

The fact is, we, the people have to stand up and demand an end to the money, the big, ugly, corrupting, pervasive money of the wealthy and corporations that's buying our legislators, our laws and so, our government.  It has to come from us.  It will only happen if we stand up. we have to take our government back. It can happen but it has to come from us. We must demand it.

Link to pdf of the Court's decision:   McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n - Supreme Court

Montana State Supreme Court sees things clearly

The Montana Supreme Court sees what you and I see and what the Supreme Court can't: Montana High Court Says 'Citizens United' Does Not Apply In Big Sky State State Supreme Court Issues Remarkable Ruling Against Corporate Speech

From the article: “Organizations like WTP that act as a conduit for anonymously spending by others represent a threat to the political marketplace,” wrote Mike McGrath, Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court, for the majority. “Clearly the impact of unlimited corporate donations creates a dominating impact on the political process and inevitably minimizes the impact of individual citizens.” And thank goodness. The whole world hasn't lost its collective mind after all. Now, one down, 49 states to go. It's enough to give one a glimmer of hope, at least. Thank you, Montana State Supreme Court. It's a new year's gift. Link: http://www.alternet.org/story/153623/montana_high_court_says_%27citizens_united%27_does_not_apply_in_big_sky_state

Robin Carnahan: Right on the Supreme Court ruling

She's right. We must stand together. We have to fight Roy Blunt AND the Supreme Court and their ruling on unlimited campaign contributions from corporations and the wealthy. It really is us vs. them.

Accountability in our election system

Okay so the John Roberts' Supreme Court blew the lid off spending limits and reporting of campaign funding limits with its ruling this year for corporations and, basically, the wealthy of the country. I wrote about it earlier, of course. It was and is, of course, a travesty, when it comes to minimizing our votes--because it does--maximizing the voice and will of the corporations and wealthy and keeping people accountable for what they say in elections. And the Democrats, right now, are trying to fix this but, you guessed it--the Republicans are already threatening to fight this for both themselves and their corporate masters: Democrats need at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP procedural delays, but their chances of doing so are slim. So far, not one Senate Republican has swung behind the measure, which is strongly opposed by the party's leadership. Nor is it clear that all 59 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents will support the bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement Monday that the bill is designed to "protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics and exempting their campaign supporters from an all out attack on the First Amendment." I don't care if you're a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, an Independent or a Tea Party member--if you're not wealthy, this goes against you, whether you know or believe it or not. Link to original posts: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/disclose-act-faces-gop-fi_n_660461.html

Ladies and Gentlemen, your Supreme Court of the United States (and what they're doing to us)

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) railed against the Supreme Court in a speech to progressive legal scholars Thursday night, declaring that "the Roberts Court has systematically dismantled the legal protections that help ordinary people find justice when wronged by the economically powerful." Franken in particular decried the way conservative legal scholars have changed the popular perception of what Supreme Court justices do -- and what justice is. Thank you, Judy, for that introduction, and for your work on behalf of working Americans. Thank you to Caroline Fredrickson for your leadership and for inviting me to speak here tonight. Thank you all for being here tonight, and for the good work you do to defend the Constitution and the American values it represents. It is an honor to address this convention. Speakers at past ACS gatherings have included Supreme Court Justices, Attorneys General, other cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and distinguished legal scholars. So tonight I guess we'll finally get an answer to the question: "What do Stephen Breyer, Laurence Tribe, and Al Franken have in common?" Other than: "They were all in the front row when the Dead played the Garden back in '71." Tonight, we celebrate the rise of a new generation of progressive legal scholars and jurists. Look to your left. Look to your right. Odds are, at least one of the three of you will someday be filibustered by Senate Republicans. Speaking of which, I'd like to give a special shout-out to all the filibustered nominees we have here with us tonight. The Republican obstruction that is standing between you and the work you've agreed to do for your country is unacceptable. And we will continue to fight it. In particular, I want to recognize Dawn Johnsen, who should be the head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. What Republicans have done to keep you from doing that important job is flat out wrong. And I want to recognize Goodwin Liu, who should be sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals right now, and who deserves an up-or-down vote. When I joined the Senate, I was thrown right into the fire as a member of the Judiciary Committee, where, by the way, I enthusiastically voted for Goodwin. On my fifth day in office, I found myself taking part in the confirmation hearings for now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Just like I am tonight, I was one of the few non-lawyers in the room, but I didn't mind. You see, I did some research, and it turns out that most Minnesotans aren't lawyers, either. But that doesn't mean they aren't directly affected every day by what happens on the Supreme Court, and in our legal system. I don't think you need to be a lawyer to recognize that the Roberts Court has, consistently and intentionally, protected and promoted the interests of the powerful over those of individual Americans. And you certainly don't need to be a lawyer to understand what that means for the working people who are losing their rights, one 5-4 decision at a time. Tonight, I'd like to talk about how we got to this sad moment in American legal history - because it didn't happen by accident. Conservative activists - led by the Federalist Society - have waged a remarkably successful battle to re-shape our legal discourse, and thus our legal system. And they're not done yet. I should acknowledge up front that this story is kind of a downer. But there's good news: the ending has not yet been written. And I really believe that, if we pay attention to how things got so bad, we'll learn how to make them better. Link to original post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/18/al-franken-slams-supreme_n_617448.html