Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

helphaiti

Donate to CT Dems
Enable ActBlue
for CT Races
$
John Larson
(1st CD)
$
Joe Courtney
(2nd CD)
$
Rosa DeLauro
(3rd CD)
$
Jim Himes
(4th CD)
$
Chris Murphy
(5th CD)
$
Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 
 


 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

My Left Nutmeg

Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits

by: Jon Kantrowitz

Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:19:28 AM EST


The Supreme Court ruled today that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.  The court  overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin...

UPDATE: ctblogger: Response to this HORRIBLE decision is coming in. Read more below the fold.

Jon Kantrowitz :: Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits
Statement from Sen. Russ Feingold
It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold's soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process.  But this decision was a terrible mistake.  Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president.  Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was 'firmly embedded in our law.'  Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government.  The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I  will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.

Statement from Freedom 21 (leading campaign finance reform advocacy group):
Today's Supreme Court decision in the  Citizens United case is a disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court.

The decision will unleash unprecedented amounts of corporate "influence-seeking" money on our elections and create unprecedented opportunities for corporate "influence-buying" corruption.  

Today's decision is the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in Supreme Court history. In order to reach the decision, five justices abandoned longstanding judicial principles, judicial precedents and judicial restraint.

With the Citizens United opinion, Chief Justice Roberts has abandoned the illusory public commitments he made to "judicial modesty" and "respect for precedent" to cast the deciding vote for a radical decision that profoundly undermines our democracy.

In a stark choice between the right of American citizens to a government free from "influence-buying" corruption and the economic and political interests of American corporations, five Supreme Court Justices today came down in favor of American corporations.

With a stroke of the pen, five Justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy.


Jenn Hatch, Connecticut Public Interest Research Group
This egregious decision turns back the clock on over 60 years of precedent.

A corporation is not, nor has it ever been, a person with voting rights. Corporations are not your neighbors, they cannot get married, they cannot die, and a corporation is not part of "We the People," she added. "It is essential that we fix this misstep by the courts, before we see the landscape of elections financing washed away in a raging flashflood of corporate money.


Statement from Senator Chris Dodd
What a terrible day for American democracy.  With this 5-4 decision, a deeply divided Supreme Court has essentially given corporations free rein to drown out the voices of the American people, rejecting the sacred democratic principle of 'one person, one vote.' By overturning the century-old cornerstone of our campaign finance laws, they have opened the floodgates of direct corporate spending, allowing our political discourse and the legislative process to be further corrupted by huge corporations.  I intend to pursue every legislative option - including a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the states to put appropriate limits on campaign spending - to restore the trust and voice of the American people.

Statement from Rep. Rosa DeLauro
With this ill-advised spate of judicial activism, five Supreme Court justices have struck down the distinction between individuals and corporations in election law and opened the floodgates to a hostile corporate takeover of our democratic process.

As Justice Stevens eloquently put it in his dissent from this disastrous decision, "While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." The ruling by the majority will unleash a raging torrent of corporate cash into our election system, and threatens to undermine and corrode the very functioning of our republic.

In order to counter this blatant overreaching on the Court's part, it now falls upon us in Congress to stem the tide of special interest influence over our political system. I urge my colleagues to pass the Fair Elections Now Act, which would create a voluntary public financing system for congressional elections. And I hope we can work on other ways to make sure that the voices of the people are always heard more strongly in these halls than the dollars of special interests.


President Barack Obama
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,'' Obama said in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.  This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.  That's why I am instructing my administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue.  We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.  The public interest requires nothing less.

Ridgefield First Selectman (and possible gubernatorial candidate) Rudy Marconi
After today's Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, I have to wonder whether the justices ever read the constitution from the very beginning. It starts out, "We the people." Not "We the corporations and special interests.

There is no force more poisonous to the common good than the influence of the moneyed interests on our political system. They are undermining the progress of healthcare reform, finance reform and consumer protection.

Here in Connecticut, our Citizens' Election Program liberated candidates from having to sell themselves to the highest bidder. Yet that program is in jeopardy as well. Unless our legislature fixes it soon, we will revert to the system that earned us the nickname 'Corrupticut.'

I am committed to public financing for my campaign, and I believe the others in the race owe it to the people of Connecticut to make the same pledge. Otherwise, we need to wake up President Lincoln and let him know that 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' didn't make it after all.

Gerry Garcia: Candidate for Secretary of State:

This ruling marks a sad day for the rights of individuals making up the bedrock underpinning our democracy," noted Garcia.  "We in Connecticut know first-hand what happens when lobbyist interest infiltrates the political process.  We need look no further than our last governor, John Rowland, to see sound reasons to keep lobbyists, contractors and corporate interests out of the electoral process."

[...]

We value free speech.  We also value clean elections.  This ruling seems to tilt the balance in the wrong direction.  Our own state history makes us an example of why we must consider every solution possible to keep lobbyist influence and undue business interest out of the electoral process.  This decision should bring a greater sense of urgency that ever to our Connecticut General Assembly to fix our own laws so that we can keep the integrity of our process and prevent corruption from entering our system.


This story will be updated throughout the day
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

It's back to business as ususal (0.00 / 0)
You can be sure that this decision will have a huge impact on this year's elections...and not in a good way.

Tell Congress to pass the Fair Elections Now Act - NOW! (0.00 / 0)
Public Campaign Action Fund is circulating a petition to get the Fair Elections Now Act (campaign finance reform) passed.

Click here to sign the petition:

Tell Congress: Stop Flood of Corporate Money

The Supreme Court has just given big corporations even more influence in our electoral process. The Court has overturned decades of precedent to make sure corporations have the same political rights as living, breathing people.

It's time for Congress to act swiftly and powerfully to make sure voters--not corporations--have control of our elections.

Act now - pass the Fair Elections Now Act.



Too Late (0.00 / 0)
.
This was in my inbox just this morning...

Save Democracy

http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/3001...

At any moment, the Supreme Court will announce whether it will allow corporations to spend all the money they want on political campaigns, something that has been illegal in the U.S. since 1907.

Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means that the government is up for sale to the highest bidder, and that the law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable.

That's why I signed Rep. Alan Grayson's emergency petition today that he will deliver personally to the Supreme Court. I hope you'll join me and tell the Supreme Court that democracy is not for sale.

Sign the petition here:  http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/3001...

Also tell your Rep. & two Senators you oppose unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns and you signed Rep. Grayson's petition to the Supreme Court.

Representatives: http://www.house.gov/house/Mem...

Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/...
.

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn


Alan Grayson has introduced 5 bills to counteract this (0.00 / 0)
Arthur Delany has details at HuffPo...

Ask your Congressmen to cosponsor these bills:

Grayson introduced a handful of bills on Wednesday -- the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act, the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, the End Political Kickbacks Act, and two other measures.

The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act would impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act would require public companies to report what they spend to influence public opinion on any matter other than the promotion of their goods and services. The End Political Kickbacks Act would restrict political contributions by government contractors.

The other measures would apply antitrust regulations to political committees and bar corporations from securities exchanges unless the corporation is certified in compliance with election law.

"This case is basically about an effort to get around that. Citizens United took corporate money and tried to influence an election," said Lisa Gilbert of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "These are all pieces of good policy. I hope they draw attention to the potential frightening implications of Citizens United."



See the video: Cobert, McCain, Feingold, and the people THEN add your support (0.00 / 0)
FreeSpeechForPeople <video>

Resolution:

WHEREAS the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations;

WHEREAS, for the past three decades, a divided United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms;

WHEREAS, this corporate takeover of the First Amendment has reached its extreme conclusion in the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations from spending their general treasury funds in our elections;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC will now unleash a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in United States history;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy;

WHEREAS, the people of the United States have previously used the constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of our democracy and self-government;

NOW HEREBY BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE THE UNDERSIGNED VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE.

FreeSpeechForPeople <video>

Background:  Supreme Court rules corporations are people: <read>



because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org


End Corporate Personhood! (0.00 / 0)
"Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars."

This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is indeed time for a Constitutional amendment to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the civic and political voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow "King Corporation" and restore the sovereignty of 'We the People'!"

- From Ralph Nader


Sorry but Ralph screwed the pooch (0.00 / 0)
and I think anything he has said since 2000 is a bunch of crap. He said that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. After eight years of fear and the destruction of things most of us held dear, liker personal liberty, he has never said he was wrong (and do you really believe we would be where we are today had it been President Gore?)or apologized.

Ralph can go screw himself.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s


[ Parent ]
I knew it - (2.00 / 1)
I bet myself that it would take about an hour for someone to Ralph bash based on Gore/Lieberman's failure in 2000. And sure enough, 61 minutes later, someone did so.

I was off by a bit because I figured said Ralph-basher would blame Ralph for Gore not being able to put a liberal on the court instead of Roberts.  It's still way too  predictable.

So it's okay to quote Jenn Hatch, from ConnPIRG, a Nader-started organization, but not okay to quote Nader himself. Hatch doesn't go far enough in calling for the corporate death penalty.

None of the elected officials dares mention the legal fiction of corporate personhood. I put the quote on the board because I thought we needed to have revoking corporate charters in the conversation.

Next time, I'll source it to an imaginary Congressman and see if the reaction differs.

And Obama is hugely different than Bush if you live in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Gaza, Honduras, Haiti (a militarized response to a natural disaster), etc etc?  

The knee-jerk scapegoating is not healthy for discourse or debate. Parochialism limits the solutions available to us.

Does the so-called progressive Democratic community ever forgive and forget? Or is forgiving only something for the right-wing Christians? And even then, I don't like the term forgiving because it implies that someone is morally wrong to exercise constitutional rights like running for office.    


[ Parent ]
answer to that is... (0.00 / 0)
Does the so-called progressive Democratic community ever forgive and forget?

If I saw one shred of remorse then I would be able to give some consideration. But since King Ralph has shown not on iota of remorse, so he can go screw himself.

and you seem to think that I have issues with his choice to "run", please note that I am holding him accountable for what he claimed, that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. That was the key reason he gave for voting for him. It was a lie. He lied and sold that lie as the cornerstone of his campaign. Anyone can campaign or run for office, but when you make the core of the campaign based on a single BIG lie, you either "man up" (sorry women for anything derogatory implied in that phrase) or wimp out. King Ralph wimped out. He is now meaningless in the national conversation.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s


[ Parent ]
Rorschach Test (3.00 / 1)
When I think of Ole Ralph, I think of how we must constantly learn and adapt to advance the cause of progressive politics -- that when something fails, we should admit it, fix it, and move on.

When Nader's Angels think of him, all they can think of is their own victimhood.

It's like when conservatives view any mention of the historical legacy of slavery as an opportunity to complain about how tough white property owners have it. It's ridiculous.

You know what would impress me? If Nader's press release read "Boy, what a difference it makes to have Roberts and Alito on the bench!"

Source it to someone who didn't totally and irresponsibly fuck up the country, and perhaps we would see it through a different lens. I'm with Met00 -- I might forgive someone who apologized for his errors and the damage he did.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...


[ Parent ]
I'm no fan of Ralph either (4.00 / 2)
but I do believe we need a constitutional Amemdment ending Corperate personhood.

[ Parent ]
Ralph (4.00 / 1)
.
It was good to  see you wrote that.

This link is well worth the few minutes it takes to get through. I think a lot of us forget the good things he's done for all of us because it was so long ago. The article is from a classic car enthusiast magazine:

http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/st...

Whether you like him or not--and a large part of this magazine's readership is probably at least somewhat hostile to his legacy--this much is impossible to deny: Nader's fingerprints are smeared all over every motor vehicle produced today, maybe more so than those of the people who designed them in the first place. The same holds true for lawnmowers, extension cords, children's toys and processed food.

.

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
There in no doubt (0.00 / 0)
that  Ralph Naders legacy as a consumer advocate is beyond  compare and he is responsible for exposings gross abuses by Corperate America from the 1960s to today which put profit ahead  of safety in ways that make anyone with any moral sick.

Unlike some here I don't believe blaming  Nader for Gores loss is fair or productive and think this past Tuesday proved you don't need a bogeyman to show how damn stupid the American people can be or how bad Democrats can be at Governing once given the chance.


[ Parent ]
I agree. (0.00 / 0)
Gore most likely won the 2000 election if all the votes cast in Florida were counted.

Let alone if various forms of biased voter suppression were not in place in Florida.

We will never know if Gore won the popular vote or not in 2000 since the purported popular vote number is a fiction based on inaccurate, unaudited counts.

Like yesterday's ruling we can blame both to a large extent on the Supreme Court.

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org


[ Parent ]
questions on the SCOTUS "decision" (0.00 / 0)
Can somebody tell me if individuals and couples must still be limited to the campaign donation levels currently set?  And can they bypass this rule by incorporating?  What about businesses not set up as corporations - is this a literal use of the word corporations here? Are the businesses that are less profitable (hence not yet incorporated) having their voices shut out by this decision? I know, boo hoo, but I am just looking to see exactly how exclusive the group who benefits is.

When I heard this, I was ready to hit the streets.

I could say more but everybody else already has.


Yes (0.00 / 0)
All campaign limits are still in place. As I understand it, this only spoke to independent expenditures.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
The wost Supreme Court decision in many years (0.00 / 0)
 If it was up to many we would be the "United States of Corporate America"

Like...worst decision in about a decade? n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
 
2 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Spotlight

Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.
(What is Spotlight?)


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links


Connecticut's War Dead

Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- Jon Kantrowitz
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- A Public Defender
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT

CT Candidates
- Chris Murphy for Senate
- Susan Bysiewicz for Senate

- William Tong for Senate


Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin



More blogs about connecticut+politics.
Technorati Blog Finder


 
Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Powered by: SoapBlox