START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Citizens United Revisited?


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Constitution, Courts, Elections, GOP Lies, Maddow, Teabuggery, Video )

TomCat
- 836 days ago - politicsplus.org
See 1st comment



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

TomCat S. (286)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 11:17 am
Citizens United has to be the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, because it is making our electoral process a cesspit of lies in which the liars have zero accountability for their deception. Thanks to the courage of Montana’s state Supreme Court, Citizens United may be revisited.
 

Sue H. (7)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 11:40 am
Great photo! Montana took a brave stance, but looks like Corporate Greed trumps their State Law and Corporate $$$ will be allowed during this election period.... no hearing until after the election. (?)
 

Azaima A. (219)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 12:20 pm
uh oh
 

Kathy B. (98)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 12:33 pm
And the money that has been pledged get Obama out of office - $1 billion. How many people could be hired with that?
 

Jim Phillips (3209)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 12:45 pm

Are traitors still shot at dawn...

Ty, Tom.
.
 

Mary T. (186)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 3:44 pm
I agree Tom,Citizens United has to be the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, They have opened up the flood gates of money pouring in to our elections where the corporation and not the people are running our elections, Citizens United should be done away with, Shame on the Supreme Court for ever allowing this to happen.
 

Richard M. (0)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 4:26 pm
REPORTING ANOTHER USDOJ SCANDAL TO CNN, USA TODAY & CARE 2:
NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GEN. CASE# 200706634 COVERED UP 3+ YRS.
BURLCO., N.J. DIVORCE FRAUD REPORTED TO N.J. & USDOJ IN 2007.
F.B.I. MISCONDUCT REPORTED TO USDOJ, N.J., DE & PA IN 2008.
N.J. SEN. JAMES BEACH ADVISED (CASE PENDING) APRIL 13, 2009.
WRONGLY JAILED & HELD IN DE 9 DAYS, N.J. 28 & PA 3 DAYS.
DELAWARE SEN. TOM CARPER ADVISED SENATE JUDICIARY COMM.
I REPORTED THE ABDUCTION OF MY DAUGHTER TO USDOJ IN 2009.
I'M LEFT HOMELESS IN PHILADELPHIA, PA DUE TO CORRUPTION.
I FLED TO PHILADELPHIA, PA ON OCTOBER 15, 2009 FOR SAFETY.
N.J. SEN. LAUTENBERG & MENENDEZ WROTE USDOJ RE: WIT. PROT.
EX PA REP. JOE SESTAK ADVISED HOUSE BUT LACKED FOLLOW UP.
MY. BRO. RON MILLS JR. (WITNESS) WAS MURDERED JULY 12, 2010.
ASSAULTED BY 9 MEMB. OF TOM CORBETT'S SECURITY AUG. 6, 2010.
REPORTED N.J. AG CASE# 200706634 COVER UP TO GOV. RENDELL.
I WAS WRONGLY DETAINED & ASSAULTED FOR REPORTING CRIME.
SADLY I'VE BEEN LIED TO BY TRI-STATE POLICE & USDOJ EMPLOYEES.
THEY TREAT ME "POORLY" & FAIL TO ASSIST ME RE: "WIT. PROTECTION" ?
TRI-STATE GOVERNORS OFFICES ALSO HAVE FAILED TO ASSIST ME.
I FILED CORRUPTION & ETHICS COMPLAINTS WITH USDOJ & CONGRESS.
I ASK FRIENDS & CONCERNED CITIZENS TO WRITE OR CALL THE USDOJ.
EMAIL: ASKDOJ@USDOJ.GOV

JUSTICE FOR MILLS FAMILY
http://www.Twitter.com/JusticeForMills

FIGHT CORRUPTION (USA)
http://www.Facebook.com/FightCorruption

SAVE ALLISON MILLS (Rich Mills Daughter Abducted)
http://www.Facebook.com/SaveAllisonMills
 

Kit B. (276)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 4:33 pm

Lets think about who makes these decisions and then ask: what is the apparent culture of the Court these days?

First, there is of course Chief Justice Roberts. I had two views after his nomination hearings. He seemed brittle, shallow, feckless, but very very smart. However, I actually believed Justice Roberts when he stressed his concerns about judicial activism and underlined that he would not be an activist. That turns out to be what in Washington would be admired as a subtle and deft tactical misdirection. In other places it would be thought of as not the truth. Justice Roberts is just another smart, facile sophist. So much for my own hopes that Edmund Burke might make a comeback in the Roberts’ court.

Then there are several non-entities whose purpose in life seems to be to do what ever the leader of the majority wants.
And finally there is the leader of the majority, Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia made his bones in the 2000 Presidential election aftermath when he and his 4 colleague's (with no legal reason whatsoever) simply voted Republican a second time and selected George Bush as president of the United States. He is very smart, he is not just facile or a sophist. He is the ur-Republican precinct captain raised to the Court. So fancy legal analysis is irrelevant. If it is good for the modern Republican party — which is to say mostly for the crazy right — then this Court will get it done. What a decision might do to our constitutional system defined broadly clearly doesn't matter.

So the decision of the 5 Supremes should hardly surprise us; they did it “because they could.” Legal analysis, if it isn't generally an oxymoron, is beside the point on this Court. What will be the effects? Am I exaggerating how disastrous — not for any particular policy ideology but for America? I think there will be disastrous short and long run effects.
Check out:
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/supreme-court-decision-few-more-thoughts

I think we can see a train wreck coming, capitalism as we know it is doomed, the Supreme 5 have led the boards [of companies] to think that by supporting/buying candidates, they also have a right to continued bail-outs. More poor decisions lie ahead, along with fewer jobs and more down turns in the stock markets. Who wants to invest in companies that continue to make bad decisions?

Expect more dirty, nasty advertising and hold on tight the negative campaigns have barely begun.

 

Kit B. (276)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 4:35 pm


Richard M, who joined on May 12, 2012 and has a blank profile smells like a troll.
 

John B. (215)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 5:18 pm
Tom I think you right about the revisit but I'm not holding my breath. Kit I think you are right about Richard M. He needs to go back under the bridge where trolls hide. Thanks Tom for posting the article. Read and noted.
 

Myron Scott (70)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 5:29 pm
Too bad John Paul Stevens retired. This week Stevens said that
he thinks the Court may be ready to reconsider at least part of
Citizens United, and he made it clear that he believes it should do
so. He compared current campaign financing to allowing candidates
in a debate to bid for more than equal time in an auction. "...(T)hat is
essentially what happens during actual campaigns in which rules
equalizing campaign expenditures are forbidden," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57444175/ex-justice-john-paul-stevens-keeps-doubts-on-supreme-courts-citizens-united-ruling/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-31/stevens-citizens-united/55309770/1

If there's hope for a judicial change, I suppose it rests with Kennedy.
I never had much hope for Roberts because I believe his analogy
between judges and umpires is a fantasy version of how the law works
in the best of cases. The charge of "judicial activism" is ill-defined and,
anyway, was turned into a mere partisan weapon years ago. So, I
reckoned and still reckon he was either lying or deluded. Minimally, he
skipped the Jurisprudence elective in law school. I feel and have long
felt more sure that Kennedy is sincere, but obviously capable of being
fuddled. (See Nixon v. Gore.)

In sum, I think there's some hope for the Court to at least scale back
Citizens United; but I do not agree with Maddow's caption writer that
the Montana state court decision is the "best chance" to change that
Citizen United's pernicious effect. I still think it's going to take a
Constitutional Amendment, and that will take a lot of citizen pressure.
 

Yvonne White (231)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 6:03 pm
Not holding my breath..
 

Jennifer C. (172)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 7:18 pm
Thanks.
 

Dave C. (214)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 7:19 pm
more and more afraid this country is becoming the United Corporations of America with the mission to support the wealthy, rape and pillage earth, and keep everyone oppressed, angry, and fearful.......
 

David C. (29)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 8:48 pm
thanks Tom
 

Myron Scott (70)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 8:57 pm
OOPS: Major Freudian! Not Nixon - Bush - v. Gore.
 

Myron Scott (70)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 8:59 pm
Actually, even Nixon was better than W.
 

Edith B. (141)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 9:24 pm
This is one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS. I hope Montana prevails.
 

Myron Scott (70)
Saturday June 2, 2012, 9:47 pm
A fairly balanced assessment that concludes that SCOTUS won't trim Citizens United in the Montana case:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/justice-kennedy-unlikely-budge-citizens-united/

Also, some thoughts on why all of us who are ACLU members should be browbeating that group to rethink this issue:

http://www.thenation.com/article/166954/why-aclu-wrong-about-citizens-united

 

Pat A. (117)
Sunday June 3, 2012, 1:11 am
17,000 dollars to campaign for election? WONDERFUL - God bless Montana and those who fight to keep these laws!
 

Lynn Squance (232)
Sunday June 3, 2012, 2:54 am
It wouldn't surprise me if SCOTUS does what SCOTUS does best --- screw the people by playing partisan politics. In my opinion, the Montana law neeeds to stand. 100 years ago, people in Montana were very wise in recognising the power of money in their electoral process so they passed the Corrupt Practices Act. And it has served them well. But then Citizens United happened --- a trash heap partisan SCOTUS decision that gave corporations personhood entitling them to 1st amendment rights. I hope SCOTUS does revisit Citizens United and allows the Montana Supreme Court's decision to stand. I also hope that the whole Citizens United is reviewed. I'm not holding my breath on eithr count!
 

John Gregoire (255)
Sunday June 3, 2012, 4:28 am
I believe it is so appropriate to dress these folks as NASCAR drivers! To be somewhat fair, Ginsberg isn't exactly unbiased and votes liberal 100% of the time. To me that's no different than the ones voting the Republican agenda. That said, this certainly needs to be overturned either at the SC or by Congress (where a bill to do just that is being held up by a Democrat).
 

Joe R. (189)
Sunday June 3, 2012, 4:28 am
Thank you Montana!
 

Max P. (6)
Sunday June 3, 2012, 4:38 am
I think it is silly to believe that CU will have any real impact on the upcoming election. Have any of you changed the way you are going to vote based on more polical ads being run? I doubt it so you must believe everyone else is just so stupid that they will believe any political ad run by either side.
Well i don't. I think this election is going to come down to who the people believe can do the most to get the economy turned around. It doesn't take a political ad to tell people that the economy continues to be in rough shape. Does anyone really believe the unemployment rate is really 8.2% like our government is telling us it is? (Our government who is not affected by CU by the way.) Maybe 10.2 but more likely 12+. Do I think corporations will lie to us? Hell yeah I do just as much as I KNOW the government will lie to us and does everyday.
While I think Obama still has a decent chance of being reelected, I don't for a minute believe that the CU decision plays a significant role in that one way or another. To quote the Clinton 92 campaign - "Its the economy stupid!"
 

Lynn Squance (232)
Sunday June 3, 2012, 11:55 am
@ Max P --- It may not change how you vote, but what about the low-effort thinking individuals, of which there are copious amounts (think millions), that tune in to Faux Noise aka Fox News for their daily indoctrination of righthand wing nut propaganda? They accept anything and everything as gospel without checking its veracity or thinking critically. Those are the ones that CU will turn if they haven't already. Besides, big money corrupts the entire process.
 

Myron Scott (70)
Sunday June 3, 2012, 12:57 pm
Fair enough point, John G., about a lone obstructionist Dem., but it would have been fairer if you'd mentioned how many Dem's originated or co-sponsor the bill compared to how few Repugnant-Cons.
 

Wayne W. (12)
Sunday June 3, 2012, 1:51 pm
"Actually, even Nixon was better than W."

Myron, yes, despite Nixon's obvious character deficiencies, he was far better than W. Nixon's healthcare reform proposal went substantially further than Obama's. Nixon created the EPA, for example. I consider what W. did, intentionally and knowingly taking the nation to war under false pretenses, as far worse than what Nixon did. Nixon had the decency to resign. But, if Bush, once outed and disgraced, had resigned,Cheney would have been President, so maybe I should be grateful for W,'s lack of remorse.
 

Myron Scott (70)
Sunday June 3, 2012, 2:32 pm
Wayne W.: As always, great to hear from you.

I'd forgotten about Nixon's healthcare reform proposal. You are right. Point well taken about Cheney, too. Both LBJ and even Nixon look like genuinely tragic figures, while W looks merely venal and and Cheney, vile. I think the political culture generally was of a much higher order back in Nixon's day. Even on the right. Compare William F. Buckley to Rush or Glenn Beck. Or mainstream media. Compare Woodward or Bernstein to Judith Miller. I get nostalgic, some days.

Max P.: CU isn't just about ads or the presidential contest. It's about corporate control of the electoral process from the U.S. House on up. It's about Bruce Babbitt, among many others, dropping out of a presidential primary season because he almost literally could no long fund a bus to the next campaign stop. (A fine documentary on his campaign - wish I could recall the name - deals with this.) It's about good, smart citizens in communities across the country who won't think of running for office because they don't have the money.
It's about how, bottom to top, we've become the best democracy that money can buy.

Sad more people haven't noted this article, because I believe it will take a lot of pissed off voters to change this.
 

TomCat S. (286)
Monday June 4, 2012, 9:01 am
Thanks to all and kudos to many. I do not have much hope that the current court will make any significant changes. The long term solution is to replace the Republicans.
 

Robert B. (57)
Monday June 4, 2012, 2:06 pm
The scary thing is that so many average, well-meaning republicans and independents, are so mis-informed or manipulated by the twisted truth of Faux News and AM right wing nutters that they can't think for themselves. I've met and talked to some of them and they seem really nice and thoughtful until some issue is mentioned (like illegal aliens or Obama) and all of a sudden they go brain dead and just repeat crap from the extreme reich-wing media. It's eerie. They seem to believe all of this BS. And no matter what anyone says, a lot of this is simply: PURE RACISM. The subtle kind that lies just beneath the surface and is not admitted.
 

Carol H. (229)
Tuesday June 5, 2012, 4:28 am
noted and agreed!! thanks Tom
 

TomCat S. (286)
Tuesday June 5, 2012, 8:54 am
Thank you both. Kudos to Robert
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

TomCat S.

TomCat S.
TomCat's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 76
Stories submitted: 2767
Front Page stories: 2422




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.