Can corporations become President or get married? (Ruductio ad ridiculum)

Ha-ha! I would venture even further into the absurd than Weingarten. For the same conservatives who granted corporations personhood and the same rights as people are the same ones who believe that all rights are inalienable (meaning, no man or government can take them away) because they come from God.

Well if that's true for corporations then... Can corporations go to heaven? I mean, can corporations be baptized, receive the sacraments and be redeemed by accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior? After all, the Supreme Court just established that corporations, as people, can practice religion.

Conversely, can corporations go to hell?  (If they can be damned, it's too bad that we can't even put a corporation in jail here on Earth.)

But wait, corporations already have the potential for eternal life -- a going concern. So what do they need heaven for? After all, the death of a corporation results from their economic failure -- something conservatives believe merits the "death penatly."  If dead corporations were nevertheless "good" before their dissolution, will they be resurrected by God on Judgment Day?

Furthermore, should corporations be allowed to carry firearms? After all, I'm sure that engineers could rig up robotic machine-gun turrets to the corporation's offices and other facilities that would operate independently of any er, human hand. Moreover, if a corporation "saw" with its camera "eyes" a suspicious man approaching its offices -- say, a black youth in a hoodie carrying some Skittles and a rotten egg to throw -- would the corporation be entitled to "stand its ground" and shoot him dead?

And shouldn't corporations also be allowed to vote? I mean, they have free speech (= political donation$), they can support political parties and candidates, and yet they don't have the most fundamental human right in a democracy, the right to vote!?  That seems illogical and unjust.

On the flip side, Weingarten's colleague at the Washington Post Catherine Rampell wondered why people can't enjoy some of the legal rights of corporations. I mean, we're all people, right? People are people. Therefore, said Rampell, people should be allowed to register their diploma (intellectual property) in Bermuda and and then claim their lifetime earnings -- thanks to said diploma -- for tax in Bermuda, even if they happen to live and work in the U.S. After all this is what Apple and other "American" corporations do with their patents.

In his piece, Weingarten wonders if corporations can have gay marriages and be charged with rape -- more good questions that will probably be decided by our absurdist Supreme Court soon!....

Gene takes the ‘corporations are people’ idea to a logical end: President Kraft Foods

By Gene Weingarten

July 25, 2014 | Washington Post

URL: http://wapo.st/WM4Nb5

Reverse eminent domain keeping Americans in their homes

This is something to keep an eye on. What is meant by reverse eminent domain? Basically, it's when a city makes a market-value offer on a "toxic" home loan and reissues the debt to the current homeowner at a lower rate of interest.

In 2005, Dubya's Supreme Court gave localities the right to invoke eminent domain -- and evict landowners -- solely for the purpose of local economic development, for example, to let a private developer build a strip mall. Facing a conservative uproar, Dubya limited the SCOTUS ruling with an executive order in 2006. Nevertheless, depending on state law, that SC ruling can be turned against Wall Street banks that are holding millions of underwater and delinquent homes hostage.

Leopold reminds us that there are still 10.8 million U.S. homes underwater, with a total negative equity of $805 billion. This mortgage debt crushes consumer demand, drains tax dollars from cities and states, and holds down a more robust economic recovery. It's in everybody's interest, but especially municipalities', to do something about it.

Our Most Powerful Weapon Against Wall Street? The Rise of Reverse Eminent Domain

By Les Leopold

December 15, 2013 | AlterNet

URL: http://www.alternet.org/economy/our-most-powerful-weapon-against-wall-street-rise-reverse-eminent-domain

Voting Rights ruling was 'legislating from the bench'

I don't often comment on Supreme Court decisions because they are so blatantly political to me, albeit dressed up in pomp and black robes as something serious, deliberative and solomonic.  As my Uncle T., a lawyer and dyed-in-the-wool conservative, once told me, he can't see much that's legal or constitutional in the way the Supreme Court operates.  I tend to agree with him.  

It's because they are all utterly political appointees, justices whom the appointing President thinks he can rely on to interpret the Constitution with a particular ideological bent, the facts be damned.  Most of the time the Supreme Court's majority can't wait for certain controversial cases to hit their docket so that they can affect the political direction of our country.

That said, I think the SCOTUS went way too far on Tuesday by striking down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  This time they clearly usurped the powers of Congress.

The power of Congress vested in them by the Constitution is not the power to be right, it's the power to be wrong. One can argue that Congress was wrong to overwhelmingly uphold the Voting Rights Act "coverage formula" in 2006, but then it was wrong with serious bipartisan conviction: 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate.  Congress provided 15,000 pages of documentation in 2006 to show that voter discrimination was still happening in the jurisdictions that the coverage formula designated for pre-clearance.

This week the U.S. Supreme Court said to hell with that.  The high court majority went beyond the Constitution to examine what it felt were facts on the ground that made the law unnecessary.  I'm sorry, but that's not the high court's job.  We have lots of unnecessary and stupid laws.  That's Congress's prerogative to make them; it's our job every 2 years to vote out the bums to replace or repeal them.  What the "anti-activist judges" majority did on Tuesday was to "legislate from the bench," pure and simple.  In doing so they are were not only hyper-partisan, they werehypocrites against their own judicial philosophy!

Even so, those facts on the ground are debatable, even without study, therefore the SCOTUS should not have so cavalierly struck down a law passed by Congress. What do I mean, without study?  Well, the majority said that the Voting Rights Act has clearly achieved its goal, therefore it was no longer needed. Yet one could argue that without it, racial discrimination against minority voters could easily spring up again.  This possibility is certainly imaginable, and certainly not possible to exclude, logically, yet the Supreme Court majority did just that and excluded it.  "We know everything's going to be fine from now on," they basically said.  

Also, Chief Justice Roberts said the SCOTUS "warned" Congress in 2009 to update the formula by which it determines a history of voter discrimination, and that with case of Shelby County [Alabama] v. Holder hitting the court's docket in 2013 without any action by Congress, the high court had no choice but to strike down the law.  But think about that for a second.  We have an historically gridlocked Congress and Republican majority that wants the Voting Rights Act to remain struck down... but wasn't dumb enough, politically, to offer up a bill to do so.  

Now surely the Republican House will not offer up a new bill now to update the pre-clearance formula that would require the DOJ's approval for any changes in state's voting laws.  (If you think they will, the Supreme Court needs to ban that medical marijuana you're smoking).  And the GOP majority's inevitable inaction in the coming weeks/months -- I would love it if they proved me wrong -- will prove just how absurd was Justice Roberts' utterly political premise for usurping the will of Congress in 2006 that was the law of the land.  

Furthermore, the majority cited states' rights (federalism) as its main justification for striking down the will of Congress.  However, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act allows individual counties in affected states to "bail out" of the law if they can prove there is no recent history of racial discrimination against voters, as dozens of counties have since 1967.    

All that constitutional stuff aside, I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King that the arc of history bends toward justice... and obviously I agree with the U.S. Census that the arc of demography bends towards a non-white U.S. majority.  Politically, in the long run, this conservative SCOTUS decision -- and the inevitable inaction from a GOP-majority House that will follow it -- will be good for Democrats.  

I predict that this SCOTUS decision and Congress's almost certain failure to respond, combined with Republicans' likely continued inaction on immigration reform, will spur minority turnout rates in 2014 that will exceed 2012.  Republicans are showing once again they just can't get out of their rut... as they shoot themselves in the foot that's stuck in that rut.  

CA city to invoke eminent domain on underwater homes?

If the City of Sacramento, California goes through with this, it will surely drive the banks and libertards nuts, and probably reach the Supreme Court.

Let's remember it was a SCOTUS decision in 2005 that let this genie out of the bottle by giving localities the right to invoke the 5th Amendment eminent domain clause for economic development purposes.

Eminent Domain As Underwater Mortgages Fix: Why Some Cities Are Considering Unorthodox Measure

By Peter Goodman

October 1, 2012 | Huffington Post

URL: http://huff.to/RuLex7

Foreigners don't need Super PACs to buy U.S. elections

This expose is long but worth reading.  It should make you angry and sad.  

Take the Keystone XL pipeline, for instance.  Suddenly, last year Republicans all agreed that this pipeline just had to be built for the sake of U.S. jobs and "energy independence."  But would they have been so excited if their GOP Congressional puppet masters had told them that it was meant to pipe Canadian oil to a Saudi refinery to sell on the world market?  The Saudi-backed American Petroleum Institute (API) was mum on those details when it aired pro-pipeline TV ads and attacked unsympathetic Democrats.

Thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, foreign companies like Aramco from Saudi Arabia can influence U.S. public opinion and elections, spending undisclosed $ millions.  

"We gotta keep our corporate logo out of the bull's-eye," explained one GOP lobbyist. Don't forget the country's flag.

Thank God (and Dubya) for free -- and very secret -- speech!

Never Mind Super PACs: How Big Business Is Buying the Election

By Lee Fang 

August 29, 2012 | In These Times

URL: http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business-buying-election?page=full#

Dumb, pathetic legalism of U.S. campaign finance

"Our lawyers are confident that we did not cross the line into express advocacy," said the Nevada chapter director of Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-founded political advocacy group.

How dumb is that?  How dumb is the Supreme Court, and how f--king dumb do they think we are to buy this crap?  AFP spent $ millions trashing a Democrat running for office in Nevada; but according to the Supreme Court, since AFP didn't say "don't vote for him," they don't have to disclose their political donors.

We all know that AFP was campaigning against a specific candidate, whether it was "express" or not.  And yet they can dodge the law on a technicality as if it means something.  It doesn't.  They are spending $ millions to take out Democratic candidates, and everybody knows it.

But the SCOTUS asks us to close our eyes to the obvious, blazing truth staring us in our faces.  Pathetic.  Disgusting.  This is "I didn't inhale" to the 10th power.

Americans for Prosperity may have opened donors to public scrutiny by entering state race

By Anjeanette Damon

July 22, 2012 | Las Vegas Sun

URL:  http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/jul/22/americans-prosperity-may-have-opened-donors-public/

SCOTUS scores one for sanity

Monday was a bad day for nutjobs, when the Dubya-stacked conservative Supreme Court refused to hear another one of their crazy birther lawsuits.

Even worse for nutjobs was CNN's Anderson Cooper taking chief birther and Texas state representative Leo Berman out to the woodshed on live TV.

I stand in awe of the total lack of shame of birthers like Berman who claim they "don't know anything about Obama," and at the same time claim to "know" about his real, secret radical agenda, hatred of the U.S., love of socialism, etc. If we don't know anything about him, then he really could be the Messiah -- or a Martian, or the Tooth Fairy. Who knows? Because we don't know anything about Obama. He's a total mystery.

Justices turn aside another challenge over Obama's citizenship
By Bill Mears
November 30, 2010 CNN

URL: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/29/scotus.birther.appeal/index.html

Massive secret spending by GOP groups, thanks to SCOTUS

Outside Republican groups spent $54 million more than outside Democrat groups during the campaign. Was that all the difference?

Four GOP groups alone -- Rove's Crossroads groups, the American Chamber of Commerce, and American Action Network -- spent $83 million on attack ads against Democrats. And thanks to Dubya's Supreme Court, they didn't have to disclose who donated how much to them.

Spending blitz by outside groups helped secure big GOP wins

Hedge fund moguls helped bankroll groups' attack ads, sources tell NBC News
By Michael Isikoff and Rich Gardella
November 3, 2010 | NBC News

A tightly coordinated effort by outside Republican groups, spearheaded by Karl Rove and fueled by tens of millions of dollars in contributions from Wall Street hedge fund moguls and other wealthy donors, helped secure big GOP midterm victories Tuesday, according to campaign spending figures and Republican fundraising insiders.

Leading the GOP spending pack was a pair of groups — American Crossroads and its affiliate, Crossroads GPS — both of which were co-founded by two former aides in the George W. Bush White House: Rove, and Ed Gillespie.

Together, the groups — which are not formally part of the Republican Party — spent more than $38 million on attack ads and campaign mailings against Democrats, according to figures compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign spending in congressional races.

A substantial portion of Crossroads GPS' money came from a small circle of extremely wealthy Wall Street hedge fund and private equity moguls, according to GOP fundraising sources who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity. These donors have been bitterly opposed to a proposal by congressional Democrats — and endorsed by the Obama administration — to increase the tax rates on compensation that hedge funds pay their partners, the sources said.

A scorecard compiled by NBC News shows the ad barrage appeared to mostly pay off: Republican candidates won nine of the 12 Senate races and 14 of 22 House races where American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS spent money.

That had the groups' leaders gloating Wednesday about what they described as their pivotal role in the election results.

'A decisive blow for freedom'

"Thank you, America!" read the banner headline on a blog posting by Steve Law, president of American Crossroads, on the group's website. The posting proclaimed that the organizations' team had "struck a decisive blow for freedom" with the election results. "Together we not only retired House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, we also achieved the largest House seat switch since 1938!" Law wrote.

While it is hard to calculate exactly how much of an impact the Crossroads groups had in an election that was tilting Republican for a variety of reasons, their efforts helped fuel an substantial overall spending advantage by outside GOP groups. Overall, outside Republican groups outspent outside Democratic groups, $245 million to $191 million — a $54 million edge.

The Crossroads affiliates and similar groups were formed after a controversial Supreme Court ruling in January that permitted outside political groups to collect unlimited contributions from corporations, labor unions and other wealthy donors and use them directly on campaign ads. In addition, groups that were organized as nonprofit "advocacy" organizations (such as Crossroads GPS) did not have to disclose the identity of their donors.

As a result, the airwaves this campaign season were flooded with millions of dollars in attack ads, paid for by secret donors. Out of nearly $300 million spent on congressional campaigns ads by both parties, 42 percent were funded by undisclosed donors, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Just behind the Crossroads groups in outside spending on the GOP-side were the Chamber of Commerce ($31 million) and the American Action Network ($14 million), according to Sunlight Foundation figures. Neither disclosed the identity of its donors.

While outside Democratic groups belatedly tried to mimic the GOP efforts, they fell short. America's Families First Action Fund, a group founded by a number of former Democratic strategists that operated much like American Crossroads, wasn't organized until last summer and spent just $5.5 million — $1 million of which came from a non-disclosing nonprofit affiliate, according to the Sunlight Foundation. The big outside spenders on the Democratic side were labor unions such as AFSME ($10.7 million) and the SEIU ($10 million.)

Groups coordinated spending, insiders say

In addition to the spending advantage, outside GOP groups like the Crossroads groups, Americans for Prosperity and Club for Growth coordinated their efforts, divvying up which groups would spend in which races at which times. The groups' leaders would meet and talk regularly in sessions often led by Rove or one of his associates, according to the two GOP fundraising sources familiar with how the organizations worked.

The coordination could be seen in spending patterns in key Senate races.

In Illinois, for example, GOP winner Mark Kirk benefited from $5.5 million in attack ads from the Crossroads groups targeting his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias.

In Wisconsin, meanwhile, the Crossroads groups didn't spend any money, but the Chamber of Commerce spent $748,000 on attack ads that helped defeat Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold. (Feingold, ironically, was co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law whose restrictions on advertisements by outside groups was overturned by the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, paving the way for the creation of groups such as American Crossroads.)

The long term impact of the spending by the outside groups during this election will be to lay the groundwork for an even bigger effort during the presidential campaign two years from now. That will substantially diminish the role of the two political parties, according to campaign finance experts.

Other than running primaries, "who needs (political parties)?" asked Brett Kappel, a Washington lawyer who specializes in campaign finance laws. Contributions to the parties remain "heavily regulated," under strict limits and must be publicly disclosed, he noted.

"After this election," Kappel said, "all of that can be outsourced to unregulated entities that don't have to disclose their donors."

Campaign cash surges from undisclosed donors

The Great Recession doesn't seem to be hurting firms' business investments in our elections. Since the private sector always knows what they're doing, they must be pretty sure they'll get a good ROI. Don't you love capitalism + democracy?

And it's all in secret with zero transparency. (FYI, it's called "free speech" when you make a secret cash donation to somebody to air a negative ad for you but not explicitly on your behalf. Check the Bill of Rights, it's in there somewheres....)

Thanks, Supreme Court d***wads!

Campaign Cash Surges From Undisclosed Donors

By Peter Overby

September 16, 2010 | All Things Considered - NPR

URL: http://www.npr.org/129914137

First corporation runs for political office

They've even got a "designated human." It's the future now.

First "Corporate Person" Runs for Political Office
By Brooke Jarvis
February 1, 2010 YES! Magazine

URL: http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/brooke-jarvis/first-corporate-person-runs-for-political-office?utm_source=wkly20100205&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=descr_mrJarvis

Al Qaeda to incorporate in Delaware and donate to Palin?

I learned from FOXNews.com that you can write the most incendiary headline you want as long as you put a question mark at the end. Sorry 'bout that.

Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections

By Greg Palast

January 21, 2010 | greg.palast.com

In today's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.

The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.

The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.

I'm losing sleep over the millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."

George Bush's former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued the case to the court on behalf of Citizens United, a corporate front that funded an attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson's wife died on September 11, 2001 on the hijacked airliner that hit the Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I contacted Olson's office to ask how much "Al Qaeda, Inc." should be allowed to donate to support the election of his local congressman.

Olson has not responded.

The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign governments. Olson offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.

Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles.

Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums through each of these "unnatural" creatures.

And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?"
We'll never know.

Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision in Citizens United.

We've been there. The 1994 election brought Newt Gingrich to power in a GOP takeover of the Congress funded by a very strange source.

Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing races, Democrats had fallen victim to a flood of last-minute attack ads funded by a group called, "Coalition for Our Children's Future." The $25 million that paid for those ads came, not from concerned parents, but from a corporation called "Triad Inc."

Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the ultra-right-wing billionaire Koch Brothers and their private petroleum company, Koch Industries. Had the corporate connection been proven, the Kochs and their corporation could have faced indictment under federal election law. As of today, such money-poisoned politicking has become legit.

So it's not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns while hidden behind corporate veils. And if so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs.

*********

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Palast investigated Triad Inc. for The Guardian (UK). View Palast's reports for BBC TV and Democracy Now! at www.gregpalast.com.

Rush: 'Freedom is coming out of its coma'

Let me ask you: do you feel freer after this Supreme Court decision? Do you feel, like Rush said, "that the muzzle is off the American people now?" Do you seriously feel, like he does, that "freedom is coming out of its coma" thanks to this ruling? Does anybody seriously believe, as the SC majority argued, that the American people are going to make better informed political decisions now that the cap on corporate campaign spending has been ripped off? Is there some vital information we have been lacking about the candidates that corporations are just dying to tell us, but couldn't because 100 years of legal precedent and statutory law have kept them muzzled? We'll soon find out. (Lord save us.)

Corporations have been free to make issue ads; they have been free to inform the public to their heart's content. But they weren't allowed to make the connection between issues and candidates. They were not allowed, under statutory law, to advocate for political candidates without spending and time restrictions. So this ruling is not about free speech; it is about political influence. And now, thanks to Justices Kennedy, Roberts, et al, we have less influence and rich corporations have more.

You know, the right likes to say our Founding Fathers were all geniuses and masters of the English language, so if they had meant for money = speech, why didn't they just say so? If they had meant for corporations = people with all the same rights, why didn't they say so? (Modern limited liability corporations didn't exist in the 18th century, but their forebears, called charter companies, did.)

Even arch-conservative former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is "to confuse metaphor with reality."

This is not to mention that corporations are global; they do not have U.S. "citizenship" like you and I do. Foreign ownership of U.S. corporations more than doubled between 1996 and 2005. So now Islamist oil sheiks and Chinese billionaires will be free to play the ponies and place their bets on their favorite U.S. political candidates. (And you siwwy Wepubwicans thought Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, Huang and Riady were a threat to our national security!)

What's more, as Justice Stevens in the minority noted, "corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires" like real human beings do; and "they are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

Anyway, it's no surprise Rush is ecstatic about this decision, because it's a fact that corporations donate more to Republicans. Contributions from unions and not-for-profits are a drop in the bucket. We're all screwed.

Freedom Awakens from Coma
January 21, 2010 | Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: Freedom is awaking from its coma today because of a huge, huge, huge Supreme Court decision -- huge. I cannot tell you how big this is. It's a 5-4 decision. The decision was written by Justice Kennedy. And what it does, it removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidate's campaigns. Meaning corporations and not-for-profits can spend any amount of money they want running ads and there's no limit as to when those ads can be run.

So McCain-Feingold takes a huge hit today. Now, the question of campaign contributions directly to candidates was not part of this decision because it was not before the court. So the issue was issue advocacy ads by nonprofit corporations, the Citizens United in this case, but it covers all nonprofits and all for-profit corporations. I'm going to go through it here pretty much line by line just to show you how profound this decision is.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I want you to hear this from Jeff Toobin. He is the legal analyst at CNN. The left is just agog, they are beside themselves that freedom is coming out of its coma today, is awakening from its coma with this Supreme Court decision, which I'm going to get into after the break. But I want to show you how upset that Toobin is and the left really are. Toobin is in crisis here.

TOOBIN: It's really not just the 20-year-old ruling from 1990, it's more like a hundred years of regulation of the way corporations are prohibited from being involved in the political process. It's really bigger than 20 years, it's more like a hundred years of precedent being overturned. It basically says money is speech and corporations are people, both of which are debatable propositions but both of which seem to be, you know, popular at the Supreme Court at the moment.

RUSH: What's debatable about corporations are people and money is speech? Those two things are inarguable, that's what the court said by 5-4 with Kennedy, who is the swing vote. He wrote the opinion here. That is significant. He's right, by the way. This turns over 100 years of precedent. You know how anti-corporatist the left is; you know how they hate corporations. This, folks, is causing ulcers. I can't tell you what this decision is doing today to these leftists who just a year ago, they had such high hopes that they're going to have every CEO in jail and every soldier in jail and it's just in one year, because the people of this country are not socialists. The people of this country still have roots to freedom and entrepreneurism and liberty, and nothing -- the left, Obama -- nothing can snuff that out.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Supreme Court decision is a defeat. I'll tell you, it's a defeat, ladies and gentlemen, for the fascists, the statists who seek to control our property, our bodies, and our speech. It is a defeat for Senator McCain. The muzzle is off the American people now because they, in fact, can spend the money on advocacy ads prior to the general and primary elections. It is a 100-year-old precedent that has been overturned. It is solid in that respect.

Citizens United produced an advocacy commercial about Hillary Clinton, which they wanted to run before the primaries. The question was whether it violated McCain-Feingold's ban as some kind of a political commercial. The Supreme Court said such advocacy by Citizens United and other groups is protected constitutional speech, but the opinion addresses more than that. The court says, "The law provides an outright ban backed by criminal and civil sanctions, including nonprofit corporations to either expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary, 60 days of a general election." These would be felonies and the court struck these down. The court struck down all the limits on where you can advertise, when you can advertise, and how much you can spend on this advertisement.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

[...]

You gotta understand, folks. See, I know liberals -- I know these cockroaches -- and I'm telling you, this just has them boiling today. You add the fact that everything's falling apart and going wrong for Obama. I mean, you go back one year ago almost to the day. Hell, it is one year ago to the day. No, it's one year plus a day. Nevertheless, they thought they were in power in perpetuity. Forever. They had their messiah and it was going to change this country forever -- and now the American people have said: No way. They've learned what this was all about and they're saying: No way. This court decision has these people fuming. "The government may not impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers based on the wealth or lack thereof of speakers. The public has the right..." The court said, "The public has the right to obtain all kinds of information from the widest number of sources."

[...]

Liberalism itself has just been struck down, this whole notion of "fairness" based on who has more than somebody else or who has less than somebody else, who's bigger than somebody else. There is no precedent for advantaging certain corporations and disadvantaging others respecting speech. Speech is speech. There's the First Amendment. It doesn't matter how much money you have or how big you are, there is no restriction permitted on it. They are really hammering away here, folks. This is pretty sweeping. This is landmark, I would call it. "The law's purpose and effect is to prevent small and large corporations, for profit and not-for-profit, from presenting facts and opinions to the public. There is no constitutional support for this." Struck down. "The law's purpose..." This is McCain-Feingold they're talking about.

McCain-Feingold's "purpose and effect as to prevent small and large corporations, for profit and not-for-profit, from presenting facts and opinions to the public. There is no constitutional support for this." You know, I think back. One of the things that Senator McCain always said was, "You know, money corrupts the system. These good people come to Washington and money corrupts them." We have perhaps the most corrupt presidential administration I've seen in a long time. What does money have to do with it? Is it not their ideas? Is it not their desires that are corrupting them? Is it not who they are that's corrupt? By the way, another reason you know this is a great, great piece of Supreme Court reasoning is that Chuck-U Schumer is livid. Chuck-U is beside himself over this. Chuck-U doesn't like the Constitution. Only his endless speeches are worthy of protection.

[...]

There's a lot more to this, ladies and gentlemen. But the important thing here is it's a 5-4 decision, and Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority, which is significant. It's as good a decision as anybody could have hoped for. It's sweeping, and it is landmark.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You gotta hear this. Chuck-U Schumer is livid, livid over the Supreme Court decision which takes away all the bans on whatever amount of money corporations want to spend on advertising in political campaigns. He just hates it.

SCHUMER: The Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next November's elections. It won't be Republicans; it won't be Democrats. It will be corporate America. Our system of government's the best in the world due to the ability of average citizens to participate and engage their elected officials without the belief that there are corrupting influences at play. I have not seen a decision that more undermines campaign finance and is probably one of the three or four decisions in the history of the Supreme Court that most undermines democracy. We will regret the day that this decision has been issued.

RUSH: Quite the contrary, Chuck-U. Freedom is awakening from its coma today. This does not "undermine democracy." It strengthens it.

Supreme Court decided 5-4 to destory U.S. democracy

Gee, do you think conservatives will bitch about "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" after this decision, which will overturn McCain-Feingold and 100 years of legal precedent and statutory law?

Methinks not.

Get ready for an all new America. Kinda like the old America, only more of the same, and worse -- where your views aren't worth two s**ts wrapped in a one-dollar bill.

Rep. Alan Grayson, just about the only Democrat with balls in Washington, has pre-emptively introduced 5 bills in anticipation of Dubya's Supreme Court opening the gates of hell to overrun our democracy. Check it out, and write your Congressmen to get on board, or we're all f***ed.

(Meanwhile, Obama has promised a "forceful response" to the SC decision. Uh-oh. Somehow Wall Street is going to get a few $ billion out of this, I just know it.)

Supreme Court Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws

By Deborah Tedford
January 21, 2009 | NPR

URL: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

Grayson's pre-emptive strike against SC campaign finance ruling

You know that I believe that all campaigns should be publicly financed. If the SC removes all restrictions on corporate to political campaigns, then we'll have a completely bought-and-paid-for political system. You and I won't matter at all.

Alan Grayson Introduces Bills To Fight Corporate Money In Politics

By Arthur Delaney

January 14, 2009 | Huffington Post

Anticipating a Supreme Court decision that could free corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) introduced five bills on Wednesday to choke off the expected flood of corporate cash.

"We are facing a potential threat to our democracy," Grayson said in an interview with HuffPost. "Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale and that the law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable."

At issue in the Supreme Court case is whether the government can limit corporate spending during presidential and congressional campaigns. The case is pitting Citizens United, a conservative group, against the Federal Election Commission. The FEC banned ads for Citizens United's film bashing Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season.

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

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

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

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

ABCNews reported on Wednesday that Democratic leadership is hard at work on a legislative response to the Supreme Court's expected ruling. Grayson told HuffPost that he had consulted with leadership before launching his preemptive strike.

Jeff Patch, a spokesman for the Center for Competitive Politics, an organization that advocates for lifting campaign finance restrictions, said Grayson's bills were too focused on corporate spending. "These are totally targeted at corporations, but Citizens United is widely believed to affect corporations and unions and nonprofits equally."

Grayson disagreed. "One year's profit for Exxon is greater than the entire political expenditure of all unions put together," he said.

Grayson added that he wanted to send the message that people are paying attention to the Supreme Court.

"This issue transcends the usual political arguments. I don't think the teabaggers would be very happy if our government was bought and paid for by a huge national corporation," he said.

The Supreme Court's ruling, which has been expected for months, could come as soon as Jan. 20.

ACORN's lawyer: Why we won

Reading this might teach all you "strick Constitutionalists" a thing or two about our U.S. Consitution.

Now can we all leave ACORN alone, and let it go back to what it does best: rigging national elections and establishing brothels? A little tolerance would be much appreciated here, folks.


Why ACORN Won
By Bill Quigley
December 12, 2009 | OpEd News

On December 11, 2009, a federal judge ruled that Congress had unconstitutionally cut off all federal funds to ACORN. The judge issued an injunction stopping federal authorities from continuing to cut off past, present and future federal funds to the community organization.

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and its allies in 75 cities will again have access to millions of federal dollars to counsel people facing foreclosure, seeking IRS tax refunds, and looking for affordable low cost housing. ACORN, which has received about $54 million in government grants since 1994, will be able to apply for new federal programs just like any other organization.

The court ruled that Congress violated the U.S. Constitution by singling out ACORN and its affiliates for severe sweeping restrictions and that such action constitutes illegal punishment or a bill of attainder.

What is a bill of attainder? Even most lawyers have no idea. Bills of attainder are acts of Congress which unilaterally punish an individual or organization. Essentially Congress acts as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.

The U.S. Constitution has prohibited bills of attainder since 1787. U.S. founders objected to bills of attainder because in England, Parliament passed many such bills against political enemies, using them to throw people in prison and even execute them without trial.

Congress punished ACORN without even trying to figure out if any laws had been broken or allowing the 500,000 member organization to defend itself.

What about protecting the taxpayers against fraud? As the court pointed out, there are many legal ways for the government to investigate and terminate federal contractors which have been proven to engage in fraud or illegal activity.

But Congress did not want to wait for trials or proof or to allow ACORN due process.

Conservatives developed a voting majority and imposed punishment without a hearing or anything.

ACORN has been a target of right-wing politicians for years. Conservatives hate ACORN primarily because it registered over two million people to vote since 2003 and because it has an overwhelming African American, working class, Democratic-voting, membership.

Fox News is obsessed with ACORN. Google Fox News and ACORN and you will see over two million hits. Google Glenn Beck and ACORN and you get over a million hits, six hundred thousand for Rush, and three hundred thousand for Michelle Malkin.

Right wing members of Congress accused ACORN of being a shell game using millions of taxpayer dollars to advertise for a political candidate and which helped President Obama get elected.

After a highly dubious right-wing sting operation in September, the conservative media machine overran Congress members, including, sadly, many Democrats, and passed the bill of attainder cutting off all federal funds to ACORN and any affiliates, subsidiaries and allies.

Most Congress reps knew full well this was an illegal bill of attainder as it was pointed out in the debates and even by the Congressional Research Office, but voted to let it go through anyway. Representatives Nadler and Grayson and Senator Leahy, among others, repeatedly pointed out that this was unconstitutional. Democrats who voted for the bill of attainder included many who had sought and received help from ACORN members in the past. They have some explaining to do.

Progressives who remained silent while the nation's largest low income African American community organization was under attack also should re-think their lack of support. Did anyone think that if the right-wingers took down Van Jones and ACORN they would stop there?

What is ahead? Surely the conservative opponents of ACORN will continue to bloviate and continue to try to put ACORN out of business. There will likely be fights galore. But with this ruling the fights will be a little fairer.

ACORN won this case. The U.S. Supreme Court has called the prohibition of congressional bills of attainder a bulwark against tyranny. Here the bulwark against tyranny worked to stop the right-wing smear machine.

But the rule of law won too. And all of us and Congress have again been taught a valuable lesson there are no shortcuts when it comes to following the Constitution.

Bill is legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and one of the team who represented ACORN in their successful federal constitutional challenge. You can read the opinion at www.crrjustice.org or contact Bill at quigley77@gmail.com Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans.