Liberating or enslaving? What are the real implications in the SCOTUS Citizens United v. FEC ruling? At the State of the Union address President Obama accused the court of opening the floodgates to corporate and foreign influence.
embedded by Embedded Video“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections”
YouTube Direkt
Not everyone in the President’s audience agrees. But what does the decision really mean? One way to get a sense is to look a professional legal opinion, after the Read More.
MEMORANDUM
To: Interested Parties
From: Benjamin L. Ginsberg, William McGinley, Glenn Willard, Kathryn E.
Biber and John Hilton
Date: January 21, 2010
Subject: Citizens United v. FEC – Opportunities for Participation GrowAmerican campaigns and elections will change dramatically as a result of today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The opinion provides new opportunities for many players in the process, but includes some large pitfalls for candidates and the political parties.
The most immediate and basic implication of the decision is that corporations and unions may now pay for unlimited independent expenditures directly from their general treasuries. And by invalidating a key portion of the McCain-Feingold law that barred such expenditures within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary, all entities will be able to directly advocate the election or defeat of specific federal candidates right through Election Day.
This affirmation of corporate and union First Amendment rights will also apply to state and local laws currently restricting corporations and unions from engaging in independent expenditures. Whether these provisions are in state law or in state constitutions, they are now unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The Court left in place the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to candidates, as well as the current disclaimer and disclosure requirements on communications (although the precise
level of reporting detail that will be required for corporate or union independent advocacy, including through 501c4 social welfare organizations and 501c6 trade associations is unclear).The decision will drastically alter the landscape for candidates and political parties. While the limits and prohibitions on contributions to them remain in place, much more spending by outside groups
throughout the election cycle specifically praising or criticizing candidates should be expected.There is no language in the opinion suggesting support on the Court for overturning the ban on the political parties raising non-federal funds, so parties, too, stand to be considerably outspent.
That means there will be extensive pressure in Congress to revisit those limits and prohibitions legislatively so that candidates are not drowned out in their campaigns and the public debate.Here’s a quick analysis of what the decision means for key players in the political process:
Candidates: The limits placed on the size of contributions to candidates places them at a significant disadvantage compared to corporations and unions that will now be able to spend unlimited amounts on express advocacy right through Election Day. Controlling the issues they want to run on will become a real challenge, as will having sufficient funds to portray their positions and images.
Political Parties: Unless the laws change, the political party as we know it is threatened with extinction. The parties do several things for their candidates and supporters – raise money and conduct independent expenditures, conduct voter contact programs and describe the party’s position on issues, often through issue advocacy. With the limits on the amounts and sources of funds they can accept, the parties will be bit players compared to outside groups that can now conduct those core functions with unlimited funds from any source.
Corporations and Unions: Freed from their First Amendment shackles, corporations and unions can now engage fully in the political process. The reality of what this means is sure to be hotly debated depending on the speaker’s outlook. Republicans see a coordinated and extremely wellfunded union effort that gives over 98 percent of its funds to Democrats, while corporations’ political giving tends to incumbent heavy and more evenly divided. Democrats see the size of corporate treasuries compared to unions and believe they are about to get swamped.
501c4s and 501c6s: Likely to emerge as the biggest players in the 2010 and 2012 elections, ideological groups and trade associations also have been granted the ability to engage much more robustly in the political process. Meager disclosure requirements of their donors will make them a favorite repository of funds for independent expenditures.
Wealthy Individuals: Ever since the 2004 elections when McCain-Feingold took effect, wealthy individuals have engaged in considerable spending. The Court’s opinion has significantly loosened what they may say. The decision, combined with the D.C. Circuit’s Emily’s List opinion of last fall, also eliminates the chances of Federal Election Commission enforcement actions that harassed many conservative donors off the playing field in the last two cycles. See Ginsberg, Politico op-ed from Jan. 21. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31669.html The decision will also lead to a number of new outlets who can carry the messages that these donors have wanted carried.
527s: This vehicle of choice for many outside, independent communications in the last three cycles has been rendered obsolete for this purpose by the Court’s decision.
Vendors: The opinion should drastically increase the number of voices singing in the First Amendment choir. This is very good news for those who assist those efforts.
We will provide further analysis and updates in the coming days. Please feel free to contact any of us with any additional questions.
Without pretending to understand the issues in any great detail, a common sense reading of the opinion above suggests that politicians and their parties have lost fund raising power relative to corporations, unions and advocacy groups. But the exact outcomes that will emerge are going to be clear in the following months.
This probably means that the number of competing messages are going to increase in the political arena. What this implies for the media industry isn’t clear. On the one hand it seems likely that much more advocacy money will be floating around. But it also seems possible that new entrants into the political messaging arena will craft their own memes without necessarily going through the gatekeepers.
So what will the net effect of this be on American politics? Open thread.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
It would appear that the decision would favor promoting issues and specific solutions over simply pushing candidates.
While there is nothing to prevent Acme Widgets from saying they favor a given candidate I would think they would prefer to advocate positions good for their company rather than trust that their selected politican will do as he says he will. After all, recent examples of that are not encouraging.
And that business Obama raised in his speech about Foreign Corporations putting money into U.S. elections is a real howler. He and Hillary were in a race to see how much foreign money they could grab – and he won.
Someone once asked Michael Jordan why he didn’t endorse Democrats. “Because Republicans buy shoes too.” The same attitude will put a brake on corporate political campaigning. They also have to answer to their stockholders who are diverse and might want the money spent in other ways. Unions of course will just keep on endorsing the Democrats since they seem to be under very few constraints from their members.
I’m in favor of anything that increases free speech. It seems that this decision does that, but perhaps not as much as many might think. Remembering the last few cycles, it wasn’t really glaring to me that anybody really lacked for an opportunity to spout their opinion.
That aside, I like anything that reduces constraints. Period. Constraints are bad, and make people want to struggle against them even if they otherwise wouldn’t bother. Less is definitely more when it comes to regulations of all kinds.
So on balance, unless someone convinces me on grounds I haven’t thought of yet, I don’t see a huge problem with this, other than maybe I might have to start using the DVR more often around election time so it’s easier to skip the commercials. Small price to pay for more freedom.
That comment, even more than most of the other damn lies spoken by Buraque last night, is particularly acute, coming from a candidate whose website was documented as accepting donations without any validation of credit card information, ID, address, or any other information normally required by law in all states.
Millions and Millions of dollars miraculously donated by cartoon characters, foreign nationals, Martians, characters from Russian novels, inmates of high-security prisons, Hindu gods, rodents, pets, equestrian racing champions, mathematical terms, chemical compounds, components of German-made milling machines and residents of cemeteries interred in the cold, cold ground up to a century prior to the most brazenly corrupt presidential campaign of U.S. history.
Fiddler, you’re starting to get downright crochety toward Obama. I’m starting to get the feeling you don’t much care for him…
I have no idea about whether this would obsolete parties. I tend to think not. If so, how about voiding the rest of McCain-Feingold, that might restore them, yes?
But what I do know is that the current system was already broken, when Obambus could gather unlimited funds by pretending they were from lots of little contributors. But then, that’s the way the big guys have been getting around campaign finance laws for decades, buying scads of $10,000 seats at dinners, and whatnot.
What I *think* this new law means, is that besides the New Yawk Times being allowed to communicate their opinions to voters in the last 30 days, so will Exxon now be able to. And that, I think, is just fine with me.
I also assume there are lots of other existing campaign finance laws that prevent foreign money from being used to finance campaigns. What’s fuzzy is foreign companies with significant operations in the US, but then, why shouldn’t they have a voice?
Given a choice between candidates funded by money controlled by politicians (the parties) and candidates funded by money from American corporations and corporations with American interests,… Whoa Nellie, that’s a tough one!!
As long as we don’t have to go through the contributions from Buddhist monastaries again, I’m happy.
In the final analysis, this just helps to level the playing field. As is often the case, when you have hard rules the powers that be can always seem to find an excuse not to apply them to those who support them. Its always different, for reasons that escape rational logic, unless of course you are of a cynical disposition. If you have a lot of arcane rules that can be used to send somebody to prison the corrupt will do just that when the opportunity arises. Its a nasty and evil club– one that has been taken away from them.
In essence, the petulance of Obama can be distilled into this: “You get to cheat like I did! That’s not fair!”
Interesting statistic I saw on TV this week – wish I could remember the source.
Unions split their campaign contributions 92-8 in favor of Democrats.
Corporations split their campaign contributions 52-48 in favor of Republicans.
So, why all the gnashing of teeth by Dems?
Democrats are afraid of Swiftboating- the act of revealing the truth about a democrat at a crucial point in the election. General elections become more free-wheeling and less in the control of the conglomerates who own the mainstream media as a result of the decision.
And on a related subject- did you notice that John Kerry refused to stand while applauding Obama’s attack on the majority in Citizens United v. FEC? Interesting. A Scott Brown effect?
No. 2 by Paul nails why we can expect very little political expenditure from corporations in most contexts. Some corporations that have been targeted by politicians may be tempted to strike back, and that threat alone may reduce the amount of sheer demagoguery.
An advocacy group just licked its chops
Distributing a memo
That said let’s see where this thing stops
We gotta have a demo
Let’s find a special ‘lection wheres
We’ll spend lots of our cash
And see if anybody cares
Then folks will notice TWASH
The Rights of All Subsets of Hares
Us rabbits live here too
Now Harvey here just hates the stares
And Bugs is feeling blue
He’s subject to the hatest speech
It’s got to stop, dagnabbit
We’ll put on ads that forcefully preach
He’s not a wascally wabbit
A show of foots and all concurred
A cry, Now let’s hop to it!
But then a tiny voice was heard
That very nearly blew it
Our acronym’s all wrong he said
I don’t mind spending cash
But the W should be R instead
And that means we are TRASH
They slunk away no backward glance
Turned out the lights and parted
In sorrow lost their only chance
To see what Court had started
What’s really comical in all this is that the people who are screaming the loudest about foreign corporations having an influence on American elections are the very same people who want to make sure that every illegal alien in the US gets to vote (at least once, more if possible).
I’m betting that McCain, Feingold and every other congressman who supported campaign finance reform are rueing the day that they put language in the law saying that the law is not invalidated if any part of it is ruled unconstitutional.
KRB
“did you notice that John Kerry refused to stand while applauding Obama’s attack on the majority in Citizens United v. FEC? Interesting. A Scott Brown effect?”
I did not and that is interesting.
I’d guess that Kerry agrees with Obama but just demonstrated that he’s more politically savvy than Obama. Obama’s attack on the SCOTUS was counterproductive and motivated by pure hubris.
We are all our own worst enemies and that is obviously a lesson that Obama has yet to learn. Given the stratospheric heights to which he’s risen, his fall in learning that lesson will be equally historic, there’s even the possibility that, psychologically, he won’t survive it.
I’ve always felt that Kerry was more of an opportunist than an ideologue. If that’s so, than he cannot have failed to have correctly read the Massachusetts voters message.
Kerry’s seat is probably safe, if he doesn’t blow it. Though with polls showing Feingold’s seat now at risk, no Democrat’s seat is safe.
It will be interesting to see if, from now till November Kerry votes for any Democrat legislation that does not have Republican support.
Re: 2. Paul from Boston:
Only Republicans remember that Republicans “buy shows too”. To too may Democrats politics is everything. If you’re not part of their party they can do without your business.
Look at how Pepsi adopted Obama’s symbol. Or Google’s open endorsement of CA ballot measures.
Democrats are more than willing to make the personal political. This goes for corporate life too.
This is going to be a big shot in the arm for media outlets, particularly TV, radio, and the internet. Is it time to buy their stocks?
With the government steadily expanding its control over business, it seems likely that the tide of corporate political money will flow increasingly towards liberal (i.e., government)candidates and ballot box causes in response to subtle winks and nods from a government staffed and controlled by the graduates of the thousands of left-wing colleges and universities.
I don’t like this ruling and the tsunami of huge dollars which will follow it into politics will be good. It will only continue the erosion of the vote and opinion of the small guy. I also believe the more monet pumped into the system increases the quotient of Left wing meat puppets who will be bought off and driven to polls.
I don’t believe we’re enhancing free speech here. If dollars tabulations are any indicator of the quality quantity and results which we can anticipate, then the record-busting $1.7 billion spent installing Obama should give everyone pause. I certainly don’t believe giant corporate interests are likely to promote my interests. They LOVE big government, as long as they own it and can bend it to their will. Look at how craven big business has been when it comes to loyalty to America or We The People! Big Biz will crush the little guy as well and as effectively as Big Gov.
Oddly enough I agree with Obama’s rhetoric on this, though I’m sure His love of Big Union corporate interests is not matched by my own profound hatred of it.
–can you say “due to having dranken so much iced tea, i had to go wee wee, and THAT must’ve been when the chinamen put the bag of cash in my coat pocket, which i never take with me to the wee wee room, as thith thigned affadavit from Tipper makth ABHUNDHUNTLY clear.”
How about, can you whine “no controlling legal authority” through your nose?
novanglus/10; “why the gnashing?” –see the memorandum, para beginning “527 groups” –those groups have been major Dem weapons since McC/Feingold.
there’s no reason why (except for the Swifties) the right has relatively underused them, other than they violate the law whan directed by the candidate’s campaign organization, which is nigh-impossible to prove, a fact which cedes the field to the ethics-free party.
Ergo, the gnashing on the left.
AlGore-ophobic pipe-fitter,
I am deeply indebted to Mr. Soetero-aka-BHO.
He has inspired me to do much research. He has challenged me to knit my brow at length pondering his statements, the better to unravel their logical inversions and implied results.
Chiefly, he has goaded me to expand my quiver of insults and swear-words, on accounta the dazzling insufficiency of the vulgarities learned in my youth.
Of President Can’t-Control-his-Willie Jefferson Clinton, history will pare away most of his banalities and minor policy triumphs and errors, leaving us with the brilliant awakening, like the sun rising in the EAST, that “oral sex isn’t really SEX.”
The great gift of the Reverend Wright’s pupil may just be for the casual voter, the lasting and emphatic lesson, in letters of Thermite igniting on the horizon, that “elections have consequences.”
…if there are any more voters in the USA after Barak Hussein Obama has done his work.
This fellow had a blistering take on the Dims and money:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19450
He points out that Obama spent WAY more than any other presidential candidate in US history; that Millions of dollars in campaign contributions came from undisclosed sources; that he is the King of “funny money” in politics.
And that the Zed has a brass set when it comes to calling out the Supreme Court in the SOTU. Given all the above.
In a similar, more trivial vein, we were treated this evening to the spectacle of Nightline’s Martin Bashir, he of the “Michael Jackson’s Hidden Lair special” fame, scolding the editor National Enquirer for “damaging” John Edwards’s marriage by reporting his affair and illegitimate child.
Amazingly, the NE editor didn’t point out this flaming hypocrisy. Also, when Bashir asked why, oh why, weren’t any of these political scandals covered by the “mainstream” media, neither man (I use the term loosely) said, BECAUSE THEY WERE DEMOCRATS.
The question of the foreign money raised by Justice Stevens in his dissent was addressed on pages 46-47 of the decision. Minor editing for legibility.
Now I am not a lawyer. I know who both my parents are. As I read this the question of foreign money is dealt with in another section of the law called §441e and not in the section §441b that was struck down by the Court. Is there a practitioner of the Black Arts who visits the Club who could elucidate?
Paul from Boston,
You raise a good point. What are the rules about the fuduciary responsibility of Corporate Officers in spending funds? Can Steve Jobs blow $50 million of Apple money on Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer because it makes him feel good? How does he prove that his expenditures are in the interests of the stock holders? Are there any controls over how a union spends its money?
Regarding John Kerry not standing, odious as he is, I think this is a non-issue. The man just had surgery for a hip replacement.
…the record-busting $1.7 billion spent installing Obama should give everyone pause. I certainly don’t believe giant corporate interests are likely to promote my interests. They LOVE big government, as long as they own it and can bend it to their will.
Morton, You Said It. I, too, fear this will be a disaster for the patriots and freedom-lovers. I’m still dumbfounded that 75% of Wall Streeters give to the Jackass Party.
Hi, guys. Way OT. Sorry ’bout that.
But this eye witness account came through my old Ranger grapevine and they don’t lie. The ultimate in peer review. It’s about Haiti.
MC won’t like it. Whiskey will.:)
From: Henry Papa
Retired Special Forces Sgt Major:
To All,
I just returned from Haiti with Hebler. We flew in at 3 AM Sunday to the scene of such incredible destruction on one side, and enormous ineptitude and criminal neglect on the other.
Port o Prince is in ruins. The rest of the country is fairly intact. Our team was a rescue team and we carried special equipment that locates people buried under the rubble. There are easily 200,000 dead, the city smells like a charnel house. The bloody UN was there for 5 years doing apparently nothing but wasting US Taxpayers money. The ones I ran into were either incompetents or outright anti American. Most are French or french speakers, worthless every damn one of them. While 1800 rescuers were ready willing and able to leave the airport and go do our jobs, the UN and USAID ( another organization full of little OBamites and communists that openly speak against Americana) These two organizations exemplified their parochialism by:
USAID, when in control of all inbound flights, had food and water flights stacked up all the way to Miami, yet allowed Geraldo Rivera, Anderson Cooper and a host of other left wing news puppies to land.
Pulled all the security off the rescue teams so that Bill Clinton and his wife could have the grand tour, whilst we sat unable to get to people trapped in the rubble.
Stacked enough food and water for the relief over at the side of the airfield then put a guard on it while we dehydrated and wouldn’t release a drop of it to the rescuers.
No shower facilities to decontaminate after digging or moving corpses all day, except for the FEMA teams who brought their own shower and decon equipment, as well as air conditioned tents.
No latrine facilities, less digging a hole, everyone was trying to use it.
I watched a 25 year old Obamite with the USAID shrieking hysterically, berate a full bird colonel in the air force, because he countermanded her orders, whilst trying to unscrew the air pattern. ” You don’t know what your president wants! The military isn’t in charge here we are!”
If any of you are thinking of giving money to the Haitian relief, or to the UN don’t waste your money. It will only go to further the goals of the French and the Liberal left.
If we are a fair and even society, why is it that only white couples are adopting Haitian orphans. Where the hell is that vocal minority that is always screaming about the injustice of American society.
Bad place, bad situation, but a perfect look at the new world order in action. New Orleans magnified a thousand times. Haiti doesn’t need democracy, what Haiti needs is Papa Doc. That’s not just my opinion , that is what virtually every Haitian we talked with said. “the French run, the UN treat us the same as when we were a colony”, at least Papa Doc ran the country.
Oh, and as a last slap in the face the last four of us had to take US AIRWAY’s home from Phoenix. They slapped me with a 590 dollar baggage charge for the four of us. The girl at the counter was almost in tears because she couldn’t give us a discount or she would lose her job.. Pass that on to the flying public.
Nick
There are an immense number of cross currents. This article gives something of the context I think.
The United States Is ‘Ungovernable’ by Design (Framers plan to avoid the “tyranny of the majority.”)
My view of this is that this ruling will represent a very positive development for our democratic republic.
There are basically three ways to divide the players who are impacted by this ruling:
And that is as it should be! These folks are interested in ideas, in principles, in philosophies of government, and in advancing their issue agenda. And that is what the political process is supposed to be about. The give-and-take of open debate, supporting those politicians who align with your ideals, and trying to convince others that your ideas are best
Now, traditionally these groups have narrow interests: the environment, abortion, healthcare, etc. This was largely because politicians enacted laws that protected them (the ego seekers) and their sponsors (the rent seekers).
But what we are now going to see are groups like Citizen Leaders’ Alliance emerge that have a broad agenda, in the style of the Contract With American (disclosure: I’m President of CLA’s PAC). CLA will now be able to take direct action in campaigns, sending out emails, direct mail, running radio and TV spots, etc., and can do this for individual candidates by name.
And, the work of these groups will not end with the election – we will stay engaged throughout the legislative process. Because we are advocating ideas, we are not loyal to individual candidates, but rather we are loyal to a set of principles. If the candidate steps out of line, we will be able to hold them accountable. Since we won’t have to rely on candidates to sell our ideas, we can reach out to voters ourselves – that is how we hold politicians accountable.
So, in the future, why would you want to give to a political campaign or party? Do you really care about the messenger, or the message? Do you want to rely on a temporary organization (a campaign) to sell your ideas, or speak directly to the voter? Do you want to give money and hope it works out, or do you want to have a mechanism for holding candidates accountable?
One of the first races that CLA is engaging in is the Republican Primary in Texas State Representative District 92. This is a safe Republican seat, and the incumbent is a plaintiff’s attorney who has voted for increased taxes, opposed tax cuts, and single-handedly killed a Voter ID law designed to prevent voter fraud in the last legislative session.
His opponent, Jeff Cason, is a former city councilman who has a proven track record of fiscal restraint. The incumbent gets lots of his support from lobbyists and rent-seekers, as well as the Republican establishment. Cason is getting strong support from the Tea Party folks. The incumbent has a huge advantage in name ID and fundraising; but he’s flat out wrong on the issues.
If you or anyone you know might want to support Cason, you can either contribute directly to his campaign (www.jeffcason.com), or send money to CLA PAC (click on the link on my name) and we will use it to help him. And pass this info along to others who might have an interest in helping a true conservative take on an establishment candidate who needs to be defeated.
Now, it is a real long shot, but it’s the right thing to do.
But it’s also just a warm-up for CLA. We will really get active in the general election.
To me, it is pretty clear that Framers expected citizens to organize themselves, speak for themselves, and hold politicians accountable. This ruling will allow those who believe in a set of principles to finally compete with the rent and ego seekers.
Sorry for the plug for CLA, but I see this ruling as opening the potential for truly effective citizen engagement in the political process.
In the US, after all, the citizen is sovereign. Now, in spite of decades of effort by politicians and rent-seeking corporate interests, we have been unleashed to act that way.
It’s good to be the king.
L3
My crystal ball doesn’t permit a vision of the ultimate benefit or harm our republic from this decision. For now, it’s enough that Obama and the Democrat party oppose it; this indicates the decision is a good thing.
Did everyone else note Obama’s stutter as he demagogued the SCOTUS? I’m not certain it happened when Alito mouthed his objection, but just imagine what was going on there — only 15 feet away, Obama stared into the eyes of men who were true, non-affirmative action, Constitutional scholars. Men who’d actually published real law articles and written real decisions.
He must have felt like Pee Wee Herman lecturing the New Orleans Saints defensive line about tackling.
Enslaving. Politics in the USA (and to a lesser extent the UK) has for decades been bought and paid for by big business and other entrenched interests such as the unions. Now they can be blatant about it.
Freedom of the press only works if you own (or can afford access to) one. Freedom of speech doesn’t work too well if you are trying to pit your unaided voice against a megaphone.
The Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law…”
McCain-Feingold was the offense, not the SCOTUS decision to put a stake through its heart.
The timing is deus ex machina. When unscrupulous persons use the office of the President to attack the “worth” of individuals and specific news organizations by name or by unmistakable reference because they do not endorse the Administration then liberty has been put at risk.
Obama hates this decision because isolating certain talk radio personalities and Fox News for intimidation or destruction loses its effect when 1,000 other voices can speak freely. People who think that unregulated speech is harmful to freeborn men really need to read more history.
Much as I enjoy a good Kerry bashing, his reason for not standing isn’t political.
He just had hip replacement surgery.
Novanglus: Corporations split their campaign contributions 52-48 in favor of Republicans. So, why all the gnashing of teeth by Dems?
Because Obama is burning bridges on Wall Street, he’s shifted the burden of “Cadillac” HC plans from unionized employees to non-unionized employees (which will have the effect of encouraging non-union shops to organize, just like card check). Come November, that 52-48 in favor of the GOP will be more like 70-30.
Peter Boston: The Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law…”
And sometimes I think that’s where it should have stopped.
Current federal law prevents foreign contributions.
Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Financing:
The president has assailed the Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing, and tonight said, “The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.”
Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site from the St. Petersburg Times, did some research when Obama first made the claim in his weekly radio address last weekend and found that it was barely true. Obama’s statements on whether foreign companies can spend money in U.S. political campaigns “overstated the ruling’s immediate impact.”
Current federal law prevents “a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country” from making, “directly or indirectly,” a donation or expenditure “in connection with a federal, state, or local election,” to a political party committee or “for an electioneering communication.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was seen shaking his head tonight as Obama made the pointed attack.
—
Obama V Roberts and Alito:
Big Mouth V Big Brains
Maybe I got the wrong impression, but doesn’t this ruling more or less dis intermediate lobbyists? Seems that the $$ spent would go directly to the media of whatever sort, rather than into the hands of lobbyists trying to influence Senator Foghorn Leghorn…
No?
tom
Leadership in action: impromptu, informal, eye-to-eye meetings with key staffers
POTUS v SCOTUS
The President took the controversy to levels rarely seen in this country during his SOTU address . I can only think of a handful of examples where the Executive has openly clashed with SCOTUS over a ruling . Andrew Jackson clashed with Chief Justice John Marshall over the Worcester v. Georgia decision where he famously stated “the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” (he never actually challenged Marshall to enforce the ruling himself .That is an oft stated misquote that has become part of the legend .Since Georgia ultimately complied with the ruling there was no Constitutional crisis).
Another famous instant was during the Roosevelt Adm. His initial decisions to deal with the depression was ruled unconstitutional. The President openly took on the court and threatened to pack the court with justices that would do his bidding . He ultimately backed off .But it can be argued that the implied intimidation shaped future court decisions.
And that brings us to Obama’s pointed and incorrect public critique of SCOTUS’ Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling . To my recollection there has never been a case where the President disrespectfully called out the court during a SOTU address ,where the justices ,(not required to attend ), were subject to the jeering of Congressional back bencher hyenas
For the most part the Justices sat there stoically ;the one exception was Justice Alito silently mouthing the words “not true” . This has been treated as if it was Alito that did an outragous breach of protocol.
What makes it worse is that the substance of the President’s critique is fundamentally false and irrelevent to the decision. It was 100% demagogery.
He accused the court of “(reversing) a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections”.
While it is true that the court correctly reversed a trend to limit the 1st amendment rights of corporations ;it is patently untrue that, (as is stated in the Justice Steven’s dissent) ,that “the ruling afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
That in fact was never an issue in the ruling . The ruling dealt specifically with 2 U.S.C. Section 441a
which stated that all corporate political spending was illegal . That was the section that was struck down.
Section 2 U.S.C. 441e states that foreign corporations are prohibited,from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”
Section 2 U.S.C. 441e was never at issue in the ruling and is still the law of the land .
The President being a former law professor must understand this distinction .
Just Curious….but how come the folks (like Mr. Obama) who are in favor of granting foreign terrorist the full rights of the Constitution are opposed to extending to foreign corporations the right to speak freely in the U.S.?
given the fact that there were real issues about the source of some of the email donations that candidate Obama received ;it is strange he would even bring up this can of worms .
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/10/05/rnc_to_file_fec_complaint_on_o.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzc1OWRiNThmZDZmZTJmODBhOTIxOGVhYzhjMjYyMGI=
Marsh Arab: Just Curious….but how ome the folks (like Mr. Obama) who are in favor of granting foreign terrorist the full rights of the Constitution are opposed to extending to foreign corporations the right to speak freely in the U.S.?
The SCOTUS ruling doesn’t even address the laws limiting free speech for foreign corporations. And it was an important ruling. McCain-Feingold was being used to beat conservative radio talk shows in Seattle over the head…when Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson were giving their opinions about the 2008 race, lefties tried to hush them up by calling that airtime a “contribution-in-kind” and “electioneering”.
o/t –but HUGE –just up on Drudge. So, who was saying there was no international combine trying to get obama & the czars into power?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afbSjYv3v814
On balance, I think the ruling a good thing, mostly for the reasons L3 cites. Groups of citizens can now band together to affect “change” (pardon my French). I don’t think this will be terribly effective in national elections, where the costs are so high, but it can quite effectively influence local elections.
That said, I wonder if we are going to see TV stations and newspapers refusing to accept advertisements from persons and groups with a conservative agenda. Just because you are now entitled to spend money, it doesn’t mean anybody has to take it.
http://www.oyez.org
great supreme court site – you can listen to the oral arguments for every case. citizens united v. FEC is up and running.
Is it going to mean that much more money, or is it just going to be more transparent (I’ve come to hate that word) where it is coming from? Seems that they have always been giving the money, they’ve just had to go through all kinds of twisting and manuevering to do it.
If I remember correctly, there was tidal wave of sub $100.00 contributions that went to BHO through his credit card process that were undocumented by design of how the software worked. My guess is that this is where foreign corporation money entered his campaign. That process is open to all who want to break the law in this manner.
The rules only work if violators on both sides of the transaction are prosecuted.
good eye buddy!
by the way, i happen to practice the Black Arts, but i haven’t read the decision yet. the goddamn thing is 183 pages long and i had three trials this week. i’ll read it over the weekend and make a contribution if i find anything BC might find interesting.
but just to be upfront, if i had my way, any candidate for federal office would have to campaign by greyhound, radio, and public television channels, and sleep on military cots whilst in office. i just watched a youtube video of richard helms defending himself against a young christopher dodd, who was insinuating that CIA handing a poisoned syringe to AMLASH in Paris on the day Kennedy was shot might, hey, justify JFK being gunned down by a Communist, right? we are saddled with idiots. let them do their penance simultaneously with their “service.”
#28 is another keeper from LIII. Fortunately this time I already had on my best pair of jeans and a new sweatshirt, so I did not feel terribly underdressed for the discussion.
To key off both my remarks and those of Leo, one of the problems with DC is the, shall we say, oblique way people use to say things. “Give the University of Alaska $30M worth of new facilities.’ comes out in legislation as “Upgrade the only inland test range in the U.S.” Gun control comes out as “Discussions on Gun Safety” when uttered by gun control groups. Similarly, socialized medicine comes out as “Access to Health Care” and subsidies for ethanol, windmills, and solar energy is rendered as “Addressing Global Warming Concerns.”
People who advocate policies should be willing to do so openly and not through the filter of political campaigns and special interest groups. People spending their own money directly will be more willing to do that.
And as Leo says “their motives are completely obvious, and their support will not be beneficial to a candidate, particularly as they will be subject to a higher level of transparency and scrutiny” are real problems because so often they are trying to get something without admitting it.
One phrase: E Pluribus Unum.
I will expand. As is noted above corporations in the business of making and selling stuff to the public will keep their advocacy focused on pol.s who support their pet causes. I once asked a sports shop owner to put leaflets on his desk supporting a GOP candidate for governor and he told me he supported Scott, but that he did have some deluded customers who would support the gun-grabber and he was not going to risk offending them and losing their business.
However, outfits like the NRA and HCI will do well under this. I join the NRA and the like to add my voice to a directed chorus. Our voices alone and uncoordinated are nothing but a cacophony of white noise.
buddy ;
intesting link. I have suspected for some time there was more to the Sept. Oct. suprise of 2008 ,but my main suspect has been a George Soros monetary coup.
tom, i believe they operate together. ‘reverse tells’ abound, even on these pages from time to time. and why not –apparently we’re swiss cheese nowadays.
and as i type this, Dagan McDowell on FoxBizNews is announcing an upcoming segment she teased with “we may have a serious problem, with the mob infiltrating government and wall street at high levels”. She’ll prob intrvw an expert with a book out –if so, i’ll come back and note the info –
Normally am just a lurker but thought I would give my 2 cents this time.
Large corporation and even multi-national companies don’t really care who gets elected. They’ll just buy…opps lobby whomever it is. All politicians love money, jobs for themselves and family members etc. So this decision really has nothing to do with them.
The folks who was really hurt by this law was small business’s. These are the guys who can’t afford to hire teams of lawyers, create think tanks or hire lobbyists. I expect to see the true impact of this decision to be seen on a local level. Ads complaining about soandso passed a law that forced me and companies like me to layoff workers etc.
You will also see local community groups donate amongst themselves to put up an ad supporting one person or idea. This decision will help give voice to people who couldn’t afford a voice before.
Elroy#11: those of us in Mass. hear a lot more about John Kerry probably, but he had hip replacement surgery a couple of weeks ago, that might be a good reason why he didn’t stand.
We’ll hopefully get a candidate up against him next. Our Republican town committee doubled in the last meeting since the Scott Brown election. If we can just get more candidates in this benighted one-party miasma we might be able to avoid going the way of California et. al.
L3: So, in the future, why would you want to give to a political campaign or party?
I’m glad your CLA is run by the angels, but it’s just barely possible that other organizations could be formed and solicit funds for messages, that might skim 80% off the top for overhead. No reason they should be more efficient than parties or candidates organizations.
From a transcript of oral arguments
This is total speculation but I’m wondering if the majority justices in this case felt themselves backed into a corner. It appears that Mr. Stewart is aruging that the FEC has the authority to regulate any form of publication, which left the justices with no wiggle room. Good decision? Bad decision? I have a feeling that the justices thought that this was the only decision they could make.
KRB
AW/52; –and a MA revolution might send Mitt Romney to the White House. Would not be a bad outcome –i liked him in 08 but the whole pub slate just evaporated, leaving the most Obama-beatable (on the optics alone) standing there.
***
the fox interviewee was Joseph Menn, his book, “Fatal System Error” –and yes what he had to say was a ten on the hair-raising bug-eyed terror 10 scale. Just a snippet, the cyber crime center is in russia and apparently FSB-protected; it does work on its own account (id theft, security hacking, blackmail, etc) and also ‘does work for the government’. Menn says the Justice Dep’t believes this group ‘already has half the credit cards on earth’, and that ‘the real danger will be whenever they have a large enough number of the debit cards’.
anyhoo you can prob see the intrvw on the Fox website –it was during the Brian Sullivan and Dagan McDowell seg, half hour or so prior to now (say 10:30-ish CST).
I gave my opinion on this matter on an earlier thread, so I’ll just summarize what I said before. The decision will not empower most individuals at all. It is a prelude to the oligarchy and the clannish political clashes which characterized the late Roman Republic. Ideas have not been freed; money has been freed. The freedom of money is the final form toward which all democratic politics tends. It is just “the franchise” in its naked reality, no longer hidden behind the ideological posturing and intellectual edifices of the foregoing centuries. All the creative passion poured into democracy, all those sublime but meaningless treatises on the “rights of man” (of which the US Constitution is the prime example) have turned out in the end to be nothing more than the dry channels which money alone irrigates. At the end of this process, no longer content to be the servant of tired old catchwords that nobody really believes, money wills to make itself a power, the power, and rushes down the channels with redoubled vigor, overflowing and drowning the last remnants of the old ideological form. But in doing so it sows the seeds of its own destruction, for there is another power, older and deeper still, which overpowers money’s chaotic waters, and this is the power of the coursing blood, idealess and protean. The path from Alexander to Caesar is unambiguous, and the most powerful nation of every age has had to tread it.
None of this bothers me in the least. I have never been a (small ‘d’) democrat and the Constitution holds no such sola scriptura fascination for me. I merely wish to point out that this isn’t really the victory for free speech that most people take it to be. Before the SCOTUS decision you thought freely but dared not speak it; after the SCOTUS decision you will speak freely but your thoughts will not be your own. Every issue will come to you pre-framed in the interests of money and personal survival, and this new primitivism is what you call your–freedom.
Matt @ 56: I do not grok your point. I don’t particularly fear money – more like, it seems to fear me, or at least it seems to keep its distance! Money, y’know, just sits there, like in those stupid Geico ads. Are you sure you’re not thinking of Cthulhu?
I have no problem with the SCOTUS ruling. So long as foreign backed groups can be shouted down and so long as outlets for the demagoguery are found, there is nothing wrong with a loud raucous and repetitive debate of ideas or a just debasing of currency (GSE’s?).
Pre-framed? Is that what they call the letter asking for donations I can’t afford or the litigation someone else affords supposedly with my name on the arrest warrant?
Buddy, If what Paulson remunerates about is true, then to what extent are US citizens still in the thrall of foreign governments and influencing US policy?
10 novanglus
“So, why all the gnashing of teeth by Dems?”
Because they want it ALL.
Excellent Walt I would like to see all your excellent work in a small pocket size book like my book on the U.S. Constitution. They would both be in good company.
Geoffrey Britain
“We are all our own worst enemies and that is obviously a lesson that Obama has yet to learn. Given the stratospheric heights to which he’s risen, his fall in learning that lesson will be equally historic, there’s even the possibility that, psychologically, he won’t survive it”
I left a link in a recent thread to three articles written by a Doctor on Narcissists. It is really scary reading and the outcome many times matches your statement.
Little Bill
“With the government steadily expanding its control over business, it seems likely that the tide of corporate political money will flow increasingly towards liberal (i.e., government)candidates and ballot box causes in response to subtle winks and nods from a government staffed and controlled by the graduates of the thousands of left-wing colleges and universities.”
You nailed it. For the last forty or so years our vaulted “higher learning Institutions” have been churning out little liberals and set them upon our world. Heck, in the last ten years they are brainwashing our high school kids and in the last five or so years they are permanating our kids elementery schools with their liberal progressive mind wash.
I should know. I have spent the last eighteen years fighting it and having to re-educate my grandkids and fighting with school boards. So far I have won. The oldest grand son is in the Navy, the next is in the Air Force and the youngest says that as soon as he is old enough he is going to be a United States Marine. My two grand daughters are my current task. I will prepare and educate them the same, God willing and the creek doesn’t rise.
Mad Fiddler
Yes they do and if history doesn’t prove that to those that don’t read history, what then. It is for them to experience and to tell their children.
Of course they will forget or their children will.
As I said above many, many including myself tried our damnest to warn them.
They didn’t listen.
Bob Murphy
Tell Nick thanks for his efforts and that many of us know of the mess that the U.N. has made not only in Haiti but everywhere they are. As far as the French, Frack them and send them all back home. All most of these donations to Haiti are going to do is make more millionaires out of corrupt overseers and politicians. Just as they have the last thirty some odd years.
Leo Linbeck III
“But what we are now going to see are groups like Citizen Leaders’ Alliance emerge that have a broad agenda, in the style of the Contract With American (disclosure: I’m President of CLA’s PAC). CLA will now be able to take direct action in campaigns, sending out emails, direct mail, running radio and TV spots, etc., and can do this for individual candidates by name.”
True I know of other groups that are using this new ruling in their planning and preparation for the coming elections.
Buddy Larson
Thanks for the link but not as good as the video I watched where the UAW in California was having a meeting that turned into a brawl. Sorry no link.
Tom
“The President being a former law professor must understand this distinction”
He fully understands, but it is not in his plan or his backer’s plan for others to have access to big bucks. That upsets him.
Buddy Larson
So, who was saying there was no international combine trying to get obama & the czars into power?
I’m going to take that info with a large helping of salt. But it could be true. Russia is run by crooks and Putin (and maybe other money men in Russia) Other powerful men in other countries are also Obama’s full time backers. I believe most are under Soros financial command and are in the UK and [e]urope. Just identify the many socialist groups and of course include the U.N.
Papa Ray
This decision is an undiluted gain for citizens. It does require citizens to do their part in responsibly evaluating the messages offered. I suspect that the Obama Administration’s tenure so far has raised political decisionmaking to a higher priority for many people.
To L3′s analysis, the rent seekers and egotists will have to craft messages that compete with the more focused arguments of the issue advocates. Hopefully, the latter will have more reasoned arguments.
The point about candidates being less able to set the scope and agenda of an election is a very powerful one. During 2008 election, the coal industry would have been more active against BOTH candidates, in effect calling BS on McCain too over cap ‘n trade.
Look for more internet advertising too. Email lists sorted by ZIP code will be VERY valuable too.
There will be abuses as a result of the SCOTUS decision, but what of it? There were abuses as a result of McCain/Feingold. More to the point: McCain/Feingold came about because of abuses of the previous system (by Clinton and cronies). The thing is though, the Clinton FEC scandals resulted in people being punished and jailed, which means the system worked, period.
That is what galls me about so much of this “reform” duplicity: for decades now we have been a country unwilling to either vigorously enforce the laws already in the books, or to acknowledge that the punishment of malefactors under existing laws is sufficient, and there’s no need to fix what ain’t broken. The same applied in the Enron and Worldcom cases: people were punished under existing laws, so there was no need for Sarbanes/Oxley.
Josh @ Jan 29, 2010 – 9:36 am:
Nope. No angels in the group, but then again our system was designed for men, not angels.
And you’re right – there’s no reason to trust a group like CLA (although our agenda is pretty transparent, and it’s a donor-driven organization, so we have a strong incentive to be efficient). But why would you believe – in the absence of any evidence – that parties would be as or more efficient? After all, they’ve been operating as a duopoly for more than a century, and have erected a series of laws to protect themselves from real competition. As a rule, long-term duopolies protected by the government are rarely efficient. Do they appear efficient to you?
And as far as candidates go, how are the existing group working out for you? They got to where they are through the current system; are you comfortable the results?
Look, in all seriousness, I encourage you to engage in the political process in whatever way you feel will get the best results. If you’re happy contributing to parties or candidates, go for it. (I even encouraged direct support of a specific candidate above.) But for months folks have been complaining about state of our nation, the need to take the initiative, be creative, shake up the established order. And I describe a group that has come together to attempt to do that.
Your response? It speaks for itself.
Cheers,
L3
Campaign finance laws are now, and have always been, a complete joke. McCain-Feingold did nothing to improve the situation but rather made it much worse in many ways. It did abridge free speech, no question. The Citizens United decision did restore some rights. Remember, this case came about because the FEC decided to deny that group the ability to advertise its film, Hillary The Movie. Why them and not, say, Michael Moore and his Farenheit film savaging Bush? It is a ridiculous distinction to grant free speech rights to Moore’s movie, with full-on Hollywood distribution and promotion budgets, and deny the same to some small group doing much less on their own dime. That’s the heart of this case and this decision.
This is akin to the problem noted above in which we have unions alone spending $65 million dollars and growing per election cycle, and fielding armies of boots-on-the-ground doing campaign work, and almost completely for one political party alone. This is not to mention the 501 groups sponsored by folks like Soros and Axelrod, whose budgets dwarf any equivalent on the GOP side. Dwarf them. And, this doesn’t count groups like ACORN who, before their scandals, were touted by Obama himself as a key part of the left-wing election winning coalition, for their campaign work and voter drives (much which is aided by taxpayer money, scandalously).
Contrary to what Obama claimed in the STFU address, foreign nationals (and this includes foreign corporations) cannot legally participate in American federal elections. They are in fact specifically barred from a range of activities in many statutes. If you read the SCOTUS decision you’ll see that explicitly points out that these statutes exist and that they still apply.
During the 1990′s I was employed by several GOP campaigns in field of federal election law compliance. I quickly came to the conclusion that the whole thing was a sham, and that’s an opinion shared by everyone in the field. It is simply impossible to run a campaign that does not violate the law in many ways. It simply can’t be done. For instance, if you have a question about this or that matter, and didn’t know the proper thing to do, you could seek advice from the FEC. They’ll take under advisement and get back to you — in 90 days. The campaign may well be over by that point. The FEC is a body with a very strange and un-natural attitude, too. You cannot base your decisions by looking at precedents in law. For example, we once had something flare up in Michigan, and realized that a precedent had been established for the very thing due to a court case involving the FEC from an earlier campaign. We acted accordingly. Later, after the campaign, we got fined for it. The FEC said, with a straight face, something like this: “Yes, you acted in accordance with prior decision. But realize, that decision came down in the California court districts. Your incident happened in Michigan, so it doesn’t count.” Read that again and let the impact of that sink in. The upshot is that what we have with the FEC is a byzantine, parochial mess in which laws are applied selectively and with prejudice. And, even though the commissioners are one half Democrat and one half Republican, guess which side always seems to lose out in the end?
One day on the Dole/Kemp ’96 campaign a strange thing happened. I was standing outside the building talking to the press corps guys when a bus full of Clintionoids pulled up. They got out of the bus, started throwing red-painted Monopoly money around and generally ran around screaming their heads off over GOP “blood money” and corrupt foreign influences. I stood there stunned wondering what the heck they were alluding to, as the press badgered us with questions, “Ah, what’s all this then? You have foreigners contributing to your campaign, eh?”
Well, we didn’t. This turned out to be a clever diversion because it was about to break concerning Al Gore in the Buddhist temple, the meeting with Gore where he “went to make iced tea”, the Chinese intelligence officer bagman with 1000 consecutively numbered checks, the illegal sale of missile technology to China by Loral, ….
I thought for sure Bill Clinton was going down for all this. I’m talking not just impeachment but an actual trip to the big house. His was a scandal-a-week presidency, and so many things were swirling around, but this was big, it was serious, it stunk to high heaven, and it was highly, highly, highly illegal. And it still is.
But, to Clinton’s advantage I’d argue, not his chagrin, Monica Lewinsky was about to appear with her stained dress. This saved Bill Clinton’s bacon, because it pushed all the campaign finance stuff off the radar screen. This was a tragedy because the point was not underscored about the toxicity of foreign money in our affairs, and for everybody watching the score on this, Clinton got away with it. That was an extremely bad precedent, one far, far worse than anything SCOTUS has done here. I’m convinced Clinton would still be in jail today if not for Monica Lewinsky. US law does not brook foreign influence in America’s elections. It never has, despite what Obama said, and it never will. The Citizens United decision changes none of that.
None.
45. Docbill:
Shocked to see that you made no mention of rigorous checks on the origin of those funds:
They announced they were going to get to that later, I have no doubt this has been done,
and apparently no foreign funds were found.
Cowboy:
In the trial, their lawyer was asked if their argument for censoring the film would also apply to books.
He replied YES!
Only radical activist judges could dissent from this decision.
—
OT,
BHO has outdone himself again in addressing GOP in Balitimore listening tour:
Opens with an extended rant trashing them, and (of course) GWB.
…also specifically blamed layoffs in first two months of his Admin on Bush, despite the FACT that HIS ELECTION resulted in hundreds of thousands of layoffs.
Cowboy,
The rejection of foreign interference goes back BEFORE US laws even existed to the Continential Congress. They had to kickout a Frenchman who was meddling in our politics even before we were really independent.
So Monica was a wag-the-dog operation? Very clever and the Republicans took the bait.
48. Marcus Aurelius:
Sad to see you joining the Politically Correct Zombies trashing all things white.
Are we to believe that truth resides only in Brown Noise?
#26. Bob Murphy:
Thanks for the Haiti post. Very illuminating, and not at all surprising.
It may seem minor, but it’s not –he’s about to cripple the Constellation program to the Moon and Mars –and scatter to the wind the forward edge of American science and scientists. this will save enough money to buy plenty more swag for the union bosses and mob chieftans, so i guess it’s a matter of priorities.
Cowboy, thank you for that fine post –it STILL just blows my mind how people just threw all that down the memory hole –along with his AG Janet Reno’s six months ‘observation’ (enabling and protecting) of Win Ho Lee’s burglarizing of Los Alamos for the Chinese military, and his CIA Director John Deutch who put the 17,000 top secret CIA files on the internet and was pardoned for it, and oh so so so much more –down the memory hole so that they could love it up with old Billy Boy, and revel in the inside joke he made of all Americans with enough sense to pour pee out of a boot without directions written on the heel.
And related, don’t miss this:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/92774/
***
Don Rodrigo, re your mention the other day that people tend to think hispanic/americans are always on the same side of the illegal immigration issue,
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/92756/
makes the point that California’s budget troubles are anything BUT all the fault of the lax border.
Whitehall @65 –
No, I’m not meaning that the Monica affair was an intentional operation. Bubba got caught with his pants down. But the spectaclar explosiveness of it sucked the oxygen out of every other investigation and pursuit. And for this Clinton was lucky, quite lucky. A sex scandal was never enough to turn Americans on a sitting president, even if they found it amazingly distasteful. Foreigners buying influence from our Commander-in-Chief, though, that’s a whole different ballpark. He would have been tarred and feathered.
Doug @ 66 re:
Dude, not even close to what Marcus A was talking about. White noise is spectral noise. It has nothing to do with skin color of people. He was referring to contentless things.
Criminy.
You know, I forgot it was spectral tonight for an hour…
re: 70
I think it was a joke.
Bob Murphy,
Thanks for the post. Incredible stuff. Without the Internets, we wouldn’t be able to get the story behind the story, so again, thank you.
I’m also a Black Arts practitioner, but also have not read the opinion. From what I’ve gleaned, Obama was kind of wrong, but not so wrong that it reads as a blatant error. Corporations (and unions, so the Dems should just STFU) are now permitted to spend directly from their coffers on advocacy ads without many of the strictures in place prior to the decision. Foreign nationals and foreign corporations gained nothing from the decision, but there may be precedent laid that would loosen restrictions as to these groups at a later time.
Basically, the controls regarding campaign advocacy were loosened. Will it get messy? It may. But seeing as the how the Dems were already breaking many of these federal laws behind the scenes with their illegal funneling and fraudulent fund raising, the playing field has been leveled a bit for those who believe in following the law. Thus, a victory for liberty, IMHO.
RE: the Lewinsky affair. My *belief* from the very get-go has always been that Lewinsky was a set-up, courtesy of Richard Mellon Scaife and/or one of the Arkansas mafia that tracked the Clintons into Washington. Disclaimer: I am not now nor have I ever been an Insider, but I have spent a significant amount of face-time with major ego-driven personalities. It just defied belief that Clinton would be so stupid and cavalier to jeopardize a hard-won presidency for California Smilin’, but I’ll leave it at that to subvert any pending charges of hopeless naivete. I don’t know if it was Sun Tzu or Vito Corleone, but it’s said that one is known by one’s enemies. Clinton had some huge enemies.
Post #63 about the byzantine FEC legal code was interesting, especially the close-in perspective. I remember being uncomfortable during the post-911 debate leading to the Iraq War when the civilizational clash was presented in various terms, more often than not as ‘rule of law versus tribal authority’. I have some experience with both rule of law and tribal authority and neither are fond memories, but they are well-tended. My bottom line about ‘life and things and such’ is that we – this country in particular – should be doing better. Much much better. And to echo Glenn Reynolds, a little faster please.
Every once in a while, a poster drives by to say things are moving in generally the right direction, but the pace is breath-takingly painful. The Repubs got cleaned out of Washington, rather unceremoniously, which should have sent a smart slap with the message, but it seems they have learned nothing. The Dems have been brokered to a dead halt, but it seems they’re slow learners as well. The Obama speech could be a pivot point in Washington politics (I doubt it but stranger things … Confucius I think) Just listening to the back-and-forth of ‘you shut us out’ versus ‘no we didn’t’ versus ‘yes you did’ makes me long for something, say, more adult than a public dialogue reminiscent of playground bickering. I could take a good deal more of it if there were some rhetorical wit or inspiration or pithy rebuke, but ‘yes we did’ and ‘no we didn’t’. Cripes.
At some point, I guess we’ll have to wait for another critical brink, as described many times on this site for turning chatter into constructive engagement, but at some point, the Washington rainmakers have to conclude that our external enemies are more of a threat than the guy who sits on the other side of the aisle. Not arguing for a tea party with crumpets and cucumber sandwiches served on bread trimmed of crust, but I am arguing for more evidence of good faith along the god, country, and family lines, leading to productive policy debate.**
And blue skies smiling on me forever.
**I cannot believe, for example, that 40 years of study failed to produce a technical consensus on a general course of corrective action. The Dems were *convinced* that cost control through competition required a public option. The Repubs were convinced that it would drive out private competitors and degenerate into single payer health care with all the attendant downside of rationed care delivered by a public bureaucracy. Several (two) technical analysts claimed that the result could have swung either way depending on the *details* and how they were implemented – none of which were in any of the bills before Congress last year. In a wild moment of public TV a *journalist* from the NY Post argued, in response to critiques that Congress wasn’t even reading the bills flying back and forth between the two chambers, that Congress never voted on details, let alone include them in legislation. That is worked out later by staff – she neglected to note, with the helpful assistance of lobbyists.
In 2010 my health insurance premiums increased by nearly $100/month for catastrophic coverage – about 30%. And I’m healthy. I even have all of my teeth. The point is I’m beginning to think I should have supported the public option. At least that way there would have been a *chance* for some meaningful cost control. And I wouldn’t have had to listen to any more of this ‘revenue neutral’ crap which was never feasible when covering 30 million additional people. (On the plus side it looks like the 12-20 million illegals were dropped. I think. Nobody really knows at this point.)
But that’s last year’s rant.
b/73; well, that ‘century’ bit was objectively wrong –the current operative dates from 1990. O fraudulently gave it something very valuable in the given context –tradition and deep precedent.
What will be the “net effect”? My crystal ball hints it will be far, far less than the imaginary phantom menace of big, scary Monsters Of The Oligarchy that has the left wetting their wadded-up panties and BO so wee-wee’d up he actually (and inaccurately) blasted Supreme Court justices to their faces in public.
One need only consider the real world. Corporations exist for just one purpose: profit. Even non-profits require capital to make manifest their good deeds. To risk one’s business capital in pursuit of a candidate or cause past the extent of making a minor expenditure is corporate suicide because when all is said and done, in the final analysis humans are selfish creatures. No shareholder in their right mind is going to allow their dividend to be reduced because a corporation wants to get Joe Blow elected or a certain piece of legislation passed. Investors want their pennies on their dollars today, not on some politically-dependent whim of a human’s ego. And we cannot forget “the market”, those purchasers of a product or a service. By spending their capital on campaigns, corporation will be taking the great risk of alienating the very people it needs to reap profits and this is not a decision that will be made lightly. And certainly not when it will be easier than ever to find out – and put into national circulation – just what company is sponsoring what ad. Simply put, companies that support things against the public interest must bear the consequences of that dreaded word: boycott.
On the flip side, the benefit of this ruling is that smaller fish may rightfully enter the campaign seas. It was no fluke that Scott Brown found himself with national support, the same nickel-and-dime support so touted by candidate BO (but backed with Wall Street funding). Now smaller groups can get the word out and by their advocacy encourage broader participation in the election process. Even if it is only getting someone who can’t afford to make a contribution up off the couch to cast their ballot.
So, yes, the election landscape will change. But I believe it will be for the better. The Democrats can feel the wall at their backs and rightfully fear the traditional support given to the GOP by business. In stereotypical fashion they will do everything legal and illegal to silence the opposition but, as this past year has shown, such tactics are continually backfiring on them and I would bet the penny left in my pocket things will only get worse.
Which is actually a good thing for the American people as truths continue to come to light. All we need do is hold fast to the Constitution and to our inalienable rights and look past the parties to the candidates themselves. And choose wisely.
Great post, Linguist –