If the Court's decision was wrong, how about noting WHERE (Article, Section and Clause or Amendment) the Federal Government is empowered to regulate/restrict/ban contributions to political campaigns.
THIS is actually a decision that appears to be in keeping with the Constitution.
Regard$,
--MJ
(W)e ought to be asking ourselves why corporations and interests groups are willing to give politicians millions of dollars in the first place. Obviously their motives are not altruistic. Simply put, they do it because the stakes are so high. They know government controls virtually every aspect of our economy and our lives, and that they must influence government to protect their interests.
Our federal government, which was intended to operate as a very limited constitutional republic, has instead become a virtually socialist leviathan that redistributes trillions of dollars. We can hardly be surprised when countless special interests fight for the money. The only true solution to the campaign money problem is a return to a proper constitutional government that does not control the economy. Big government and big campaign money go hand in hand.
-- Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), "Texas Straight Talk," 2/4/02
At 02:06 PM 2/9/2012, you wrote:
Citizens United more radical than realized
By Fred Wertheimer - 02/06/12 08:01 PM ET
The Supreme Court's disastrous decision in the Citizens United case
has done enormous damage to our political system.
In striking down the ban on expenditures by corporations in elections,
the high court, along with subsequent lower court decisions, has
opened the door wide for the super rich, corporations and other groups
to pour unlimited money and secret contributions into federal
elections.
History makes clear that unlimited money and secret money in American
politics is a formula for scandal and corruption.
While much has been written about the Citizens United decision, little
if any attention has been paid to statements written by Justice
Anthony Kennedy on behalf of the court majority that reveal the
decision is even more radical and extreme than has been realized.
Statement No. 1: "Limits on independent expenditures, such as [the ban
on corporate expenditures] have a chilling effect extending well
beyond the Government's interest in preventing quid pro quo
corruption. The anticorruption interest is not sufficient to displace
the speech here in question."
This is a remarkably dangerous and misguided position.
Justice Kennedy is asserting that the foundational need of our nation
to be protected from the corruption of our government is outweighed by
the constitutional right of a corporation to make unlimited
expenditures to influence elections.
This is an absurd position. It cannot be the case.
In a numerous earlier decisions, the Supreme Court established that
the goals of deterring corruption and the appearance of corruption
provide a sufficient constitutional rationale to uphold campaign
limitations. But here, Justice Kennedy writes that the right of a
corporation to make campaign expenditures trumps that anti-corruption
interest and cannot be limited even if it prohibits the country from
taking steps to protect itself against government corruption.
Corruption has brought down empires, democracies, governments and
political systems. The Founding Fathers did not leave the new nation
they created unable to protect itself from corruption in order to
ensure an overriding right for corporate speech.
Statement No. 2: "That speakers may have influence over or access to
elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt … ."
What Justice Kennedy is really saying here is that it is perfectly
acceptable for wealthy individuals, corporations and other special
interests to use campaign money to buy "influence over or access to"
our elected representatives.
The idea that buying access and influence does not have a corrupting
effect on officeholders is nonsense. It is alien to our representative
form of government. You will not find a place in the Constitution that
says the wealthy and powerful are entitled to obtain more influence
with the nation's elected representatives than the rest of us by
purchasing that influence.
But the five justices who voted for Citizens United reject the idea
that buying and selling influence is a problem and that it will have a
corrupting influence on officeholders.
They are dead wrong on both accounts.
Statement No. 3: "And the appearance of influence or access,
furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this
democracy."
Really!
This naïve and completely undocumented position boggles the mind.
Justice Kennedy provides nothing in the Citizens United opinion to
back up his bald assertion, which contradicts numerous previous
Supreme Court decisions.
Until Citizens United, the Supreme Court repeatedly found that
deterring the appearance of corruption is itself a constitutional
justification for upholding campaign finance limitations.
The court said in Buckley v. Valeo (1976): "Congress could
legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of improper
influence 'is also critical ... if confidence in the system of
representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.'
"
In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri (2000), the court said, "Leave the
perception of impropriety unanswered, and the cynical assumption that
large donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters
to take part in democratic governance."
Citizens United is a radical break from the past views of the Supreme
Court, which repeatedly accepted the appearance of corruption as a
basis for upholding the constitutionality of campaign finance laws.
These three statements by the court go far beyond the boundaries of
mainstream jurisprudence and illustrate just how extreme and
overreaching the Citizens United decision is.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have left the nation in an extremely
dangerous place as we move forward to determine how to counter the
effects of their destructive decision and to protect ourselves against
the corruption of our democracy.
Wertheimer is president of Democracy 21.
More:
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/209003-citizens-united-more-radical-than-realized
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment