Citizens United, that infamous decision by the US Supreme Court that allows unlimited secret campaign contributions through SuperPacs, could be seeing it’s end days if Senate Democrats get their way.
“The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop now,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer.
“The only way to undo the damage the court has done is to pass Senator Udall’s amendment to the Constitution, and Senate Democrats are going to try to do that,” he said.
Schumer said the vote would take place by year’s end and called on Republican colleagues to join Democrats to ensure “the wealthy can’t drown out middle-class voices in our Democracy.”
In addition to citizens united, here’s more proof that the American democracy is for sale to the highest bidder.
The Conservative led Supreme Court ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision frees the nation’s wealthiest donors to have greater influence in federal elections.
The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission marks the latest round in the bitter national debate over the role of money in American politics. It’s the most important campaign-finance ruling since the high court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently to influence elections…
The decision was a victory for the Republican National Committee and Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon, who challenged the $123,200 cap on contributions an individual can give to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees in a two-year election cycle.
Citizens United is one of the Supreme Court’s most bogus decision, abd there’s been a few. Led by a conservative majority, the court followed Mitt Romney’s definition of “people” and proudly proclaimed that Corporations too, are “people.”
And with that proclamation, the floodgates were opened for these newly discovered “people” to donate unimaginable, untraceable amounts of money to any political campaign of their choice. It happened just in time for the 2012 Presidential campaign.
Breaking News: Corporations generally donate to Republican candidates, so the Citizens United decision came just in time to guarantee record donations to Mitt Romney, thus, guaranteeing him and the Republicans the White House. However, the real “people” spoke with their votes, and Romney and his Corporate backers were sent packing.
Enter Bill Maher, a liberal commentator who used the Citizens United decision and donated $1 million to president Obama’s reelection. That donation must have felt good because on Friday’s show, Maher took the opportunity to tell other liberal elites to do the same.
Steven Spielberg, you should be taking over Wyoming right now. For a mere $150 million, you could kick out Dick Cheney and his evil daughter, make it a liberal utopia and put E.T. on the state flag.
Tyler Perry, you could buy Montana and make yourself both senators and Madea the governor. And how great will it be on the day when people can get gay married in Oprahoma?”
And to Jay Z, Maher advised him that owning a state could give him the ultimate bragging rights.
If there’s anyone out there who’s done it all and is looking for some new thing to brag about, ‘Own a state, it’s my fate, it’s great’ — I’m just saying, the rhymes practically write themselves,” Maher said, before eyeing the rapper and entrepeneur and continuing. “‘Daft Punk got lucky, I just bought Kentucky.’”
Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen, has come up a novel approach that he thinks will help the growing movement wishing to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which signifies that corporations are “people”, allowing billionaires and corporate panhandlers to seduce politicians with unlimited “contributions”…very un-democratic…without having to disclose to the public any of its political funding activities.
Calling itself “a petition on steroids”, Cohen’s organization, StamStampede.org, operates around the idea that with tens of thousands of Americans legally stamping his messages on the Nation’s currency to #GetMoneyOut of Politics and as more and more stamped money spreads, so will the movement to amend the Constitution.
It’s just crazy enough to work!
“Every dollar you stamp will reach 875 people, if you stamp 5 dollars a day for a year, that’s over a million. Together, we can create a stampede that Congress can’t ignore.” ~StampStampede.org.
As of this posting, 15 states have voted in favor of an amendment specifying that corporations are NOT people. 150 Congressional members are needed to support it.
I completely agree with Nancy Pelosi. If the Supreme Court had done the sensible thing instead of catering to partisan idealogy and struck down Citizens United, we would not be dealing with this nonsense today.
The IRS is under heavy fire from both parties following recent revelations that some in the agency singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for a certain tax-exempt status.
Pelosi condemned those actions Thursday, saying those responsible “were wrong and must be held accountable.”
But the Democratic leader was also quick to link the scandal to the broader issue of campaign finance, arguing that the episode would never have happened if Congress overhauled the system to eliminate so-called 501(c)(4) groups altogether.
Those groups, which do not have to disclose their donors, have gained power and prominence since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision empowered them to participate directly in elections provided they focus primarily on “social welfare” and not candidate advocacy.
“These actions highlight why we must overturn Citizens United,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “There is a very thin line … that these so-called ‘social welfare’ organizations must make their priority promoting social welfare, rather than engaging in politics. Clearly, this has not been [the case].
“I paint everybody with the same brush, right to left,” she added. “I think it all should go.”
Citizens United has become the driving force behind the selling of the American Democracy. It allows Corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to any politician of their choosing. And because of the very foundation of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that classifies Corporations as people, unlimited amounts of money are flowing from unknown sources to people like Mitt Romney, thus, a willful effort by the richest few to purchase the presidency.
The Court believes that since Corporations are People, Corporations are now protected by the first amendment of the United States Constitution that gives people the freedom of speech.
But what is “speech?”
The First Amendment’s reference to “Freedom Of Speech” has always been a source of controversy, but to many Constitutionalists, freedom of speech refers to the ability to choose freely, the ability to decide without fear of retribution. That as an American, you have an unbridled say through your vote in the structure of our government and who is chosen to govern.
That is what Democracy is all about – people voting for their leaders with no mention of “money.” That is what the Founding Fathers wanted when they wrote the framework for the Constitution. But what you will hear in the video below, one of the Justices who decided that Corporations are people also decided that speech means money.
It would seem to the average person that the Court’s decision in Citizens United was wrong. Unlimited funds from unknown sources should not be allowed into the American political system. It would seem that this decision must be reversed as soon as possible. But as you listen to the Republican appointed Justice Scalia’s defense of the Court’s decision saying “money is speech,” you quickly realize that the American people is losing their voice, as the people with the most money… the top 1%… out-shouts us all.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens leveled new criticism on Wednesday against the court’s landmark 2010 ruling on campaign financing, saying it had allowed corporations to ramp up spending and non-voters to influence the outcome of elections.
Stevens, who dissented from the “Citizens United” ruling, said it had increased the importance of cash in contested elections, opened the floodgates for foreign campaign spending and put corporations or other out-of-state speakers ahead of voters interested in local issues.
The Supreme Court split along conservative-liberal ideological lines in making the 5-4 ruling in 2010, giving corporations the constitutional free-speech right to spend freely to support or oppose candidates in federal elections.
The ruling triggered a massive increase in spending by wealthy individuals and corporations in federal campaigns ahead of this year’s November 6 presidential and congressional elections.
The Supreme Court has agreed to take a case that justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer say will give it a chance to rethink its infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision. The court is being asked to look into a Montana Supreme Court decision stating that its law restricting corporate election spending in state elections is fine, because it “arises from Montana history,” UPI reports. Essentially, Montana is arguing that Citizens United only applies to federal laws and elections, not state ones.
Two Montana corporations are asking the court to make a summary judgment to the contrary; their lead counsel argues that otherwise, “free speech will be seriously harmed,” because states anywhere could “ban core political speech.” But Ginsburg and Breyer earlier wrote that the case “will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”
The Supreme Court’s dumb decision in the Citizens United v The Federal Election Commission – where the Court ruled that Corporations are people, thus, their free speech must be protected by the first amendment of the United States Constitution – came under attack as Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert showed exactly how foolish this court’s decision really was.
Claiming that Corporations are people, the court’s decision allowed these Corporations to form ‘SuperPACS.’ These PACS then have the ability to “exercise their free speech” by funneling unlimited amounts of cash into the political system, as long as the candidate these PACS are backing is not directly involved. Call in, the buying of a candidate.
Meanwhile, the people… the real people, the ones the Constitution was written to protect… are drowned out by this unlimited cash of these SuperPACS and their voices, our voices, are silenced.
It takes the political humor of two comedians to show the not-so-funny side of what this Conservative-leaning Court has done.
If Mitt Romney can’t muster over 40% of the vote in a backyard state against a field of sub-par candidates with extreme positions on the issues, then he’s not ready yet for his curtain call. Yes, it certainly was a good day for Romney, but not as good as his victory speech would indicate.
He’ll win the nomination, but two things are abundantly clear. The first is that Romney still hasn’t galvanized his party as a candidate, and the second is that Republican enthusiasm is turning out to be somewhat of a myth.
As in Iowa, not bad. I seem to have underestimated Ron Paul’s reliable support and overestimated Buddy Roemer’s, but I don’t think I was alone.
If present reports are true, all the candidates are moving on to South Carolina where the PAC-men will be gobbling up money and air time in their quest for Romney’s scraps. This will be Citizens United writ not on the main stage, but as regional summer stock theater. Millions of dollars that otherwise could be spent on more significant pursuits will be sucked down the rabbit hole of ego and vanity. That’s the new democracy at work, and we’d all better get used to it because when the campaign moves to Broadway in the fall, there’s going to be an ad war like no other.
South Carolina is the last stand for Huntsman, Santorum and Perry to be sure unless any of them pull wild upsets and finish in the top 3, and above 20%. Gingrich could stay in if he’s in the top 3 because he now has PAC money and Paul and his minions will stick around for the duration. Romney can claim the nomination with a dominant performance, over 40%, but 30% will be enough to make him inevitable.
The Koch Brothers and Americans For Prosperity have been put on notice… from Anonymous, the internet hacking group that came out in support for Wiki-leaks and other “internet injustices.” The group began their protest by joining the pro-union fight in Wisconsin, and by taking down the website for Americans For Prosperity.
It has come to our attention that the brothers, David and Charles Koch–the billionaire owners of Koch Industries–have long attempted to usurp American Democracy. Their actions to undermine the legitimate political process in Wisconsin are the final straw. Starting today we fight back.
Koch Industries, and oligarchs like them, have most recently started to manipulate the political agenda in Wisconsin. Governor Walker’s union-busting budget plan contains a clause that went nearly un-noticed. This clause would allow the sale of publicly owned utility plants in Wisconsin to private parties (specifically, Koch Industries) at any price, no matter how low, without a public bidding process. The Koch’s have helped to fuel the unrest in Wisconsin and the drive behind the bill to eliminate the collective bargaining power of unions in a bid to gain a monopoly over the state’s power supplies.
The Koch brothers have made a science of fabricating ‘grassroots’ organizations and advertising campaigns to support them in an attempt to sway voters based on their falsehoods. Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth and Citizens United are just a few of these organizations. In a world where corporate money has become the lifeblood of political influence, the labor unions are one of the few ways citizens have to fight against corporate greed. Anonymous cannot ignore the plight of the citizen-workers of Wisconsin, or the opportunity to fight for the people in America’s broken political system. For these reasons, we feel that the Koch brothers threaten the United States democratic system and, by extension, all freedom-loving individuals everywhere. As such, we have no choice but to spread the word of the Koch brothers’ political manipulation, their single-minded intent and the insidious truth of their actions in Wisconsin, for all to witness.
Anonymous hears the voice of the downtrodden American people, whose rights and liberties are being systematically removed one by one, even when their own government refuses to listen or worse – is complicit in these attacks. We are actively seeking vulnerabilities, but in the mean time we are calling for all supporters of true Democracy, and Freedom of The People, to boycott all Koch Industries’ paper products. We welcome unions across the globe to join us in this boycott to show that you will not allow big business to dictate your freedom.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
