“The movie was created with the idea of establishing a vehicle to chip away at the decision,” said Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, a group that opposed Thursday’s decision. “It was part of a very clear strategy to undo McCain-Feingold.” – Citizens United used ‘Hillary: The Movie’ to take on McCain-Feingold
I guess the right-wing figured that if they could get an election overturned through the Supreme Court, as they did in 2000, they could undo the American voters’ power the same way. And it worked.
The emotional connection on this one was through Theodore B. Olson, whose wife, Barbara Olson, was killed on American Airlines Flight 77 on 9/11. Barbara Olson was a Hillary hater of the first order. I’ve read her book, “Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
For the right, this case wasn’t just political, it was an ideological battle they primed and pushed all the way.
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. 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. – Pres. Barack Obama
Isn’t it ironic that the Supremes voided the recount in Florida and handed Bush the presidency in 2000 because the recount, done in different places under differing rules, violated born-with-a-silver-spoon George Bush’s equal protection* under the Constitution’s Amendment XIV, and yet now the Supremes have given omnipotent corporations the ability to financially control elections to the detriment of the people, thereby denying the people equal protection of the laws in favor of special interests.
*. . .nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Ralph Nader: 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. . .
Sickening.
until the constitution is amended for public finance we can never get the big changes we need.legislation can be pushed through to curtail corporate money barney frank said tonight. mccain, snowe appear on baord with dems to pass such laws to counter the ruling. i hope it happens
“The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer,” wrote the court in its 5-4 decision.
from the finding:
There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. . .The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 778, n. 14, and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 428–429. Addressing challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. . .Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment,
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and ALITO, JJ., joined, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SO-TOMAYOR, JJ., joined as to Part IV.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Twill take a Constitutional Convention to fix. I don’t see this occurring.Time to bust out the pitchforks.
Damn activist judges!
Ambivalent about this issue. With the amount of money spent in 2008. Who got what monies from what special interest groups? Who accepted federal matching funds? who didn’t? Politics is all about money, no matter what party affiliation.
IF any well known company advertises on tv for a Republican then boycott them. If an institute for an industry advertises on tv, pick the largest company in that industry and boycott it.
http://www.democratz.org
OK can anyone honestly say that Obama isn’t beholden to special interests? When I saw him and Charlie Schumer doing the boohoo about the Supreme Court decision, I was nauseated at the hypocrisy of these two. Obama as well as Schumer are corporate hacks. Obama claimed that his campaign contributions came from small contributions, most over the internet. For me that claim just didn’t have the ring of truth. In fact, I thought it was an outright lie.
During the primaries Obama was in San Francisco talking to the millionaires and billionaires. I think most of you remember the event where he spoke about folks clinging to their guns and religion. He wasn’t just taking tea and talking ideas. He was getting them to bundle money and pool resources and they were able to hand him millions at a time. And many of these rich people head corporations. So to the folks that decry the Supreme Court decision, I say cry me a river.
Dosen’t this decision kind of make the parties irrevelent? Corporations can now just be in charge of the whole thing. They can hire the campaign workers to push their corporate message.We should require congress to wear their brands like they do in Nascar.
To place in some perspective, the total expenditures on the 2008 elections was $5bn, the profits of the top four oil companies alone doing business in the US in 2008 was $116bn. So, considering how many corporations there are, financing politicians will now be just chump change for them.
We’re in deep trouble.
The big money has already shown they can buy into the presidency with a bit of well funneled money
Senator Feingold: “During the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 500 companies alone had profits of $743 billion. By comparison, spending by candidates, outside groups, and political parties on the last presidential election totaled just over $2 billion.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/
djjl says:
22 January 2010 at 12:39 pm
Yes, we are.
And how about foreign corporations?
Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissenting opinion: The majority’s position “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
Apparently the Shell Oil Company, headquartered in Netherlands, can pump some of its billions in profits to fight clean air in the USA, for just one example.