Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:20 PM

cal04 (36,988 posts)

CREW Statement on Reversal of Montana Supreme Court

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by cyberswede (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: CREW

(snip)
This Supreme Court’s decision today is a tremendous blow to the hope that individual states could rein in the corrupting influence of money and politics in our elections. The Montana Supreme Court case reversed today – a direct challenge to the disastrous Citizens United decision – was cheered by CREW and other campaign finance reform advocates fighting to clean up our elections. Montana had it right and the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong.

Today’s decision is overtly political and will contribute to the declining public perception of the Supreme Court. Those justices appointed by Republican presidents appear intent on ruling every chance they get in a way that will assist Republican candidates.

To the detriment of voters, Citizens United will stand and unlimited secret spending will continue to influence our elections. The Court’s decision sanctions the current status quo whereby voters in the 2012 elections – perhaps one of the most critical elections in a generation – will be severely hindered in their ability to make informed decisions on Election Day.

Unless the current makeup of the Supreme Court changes anytime soon, the only recourse citizens have short of a constitutional amendment is to continue to push Congress to enact tougher campaign spending disclosure laws. As CREW has noted before, even that seems unlikely anytime soon given the current crop in Congress.

Read more: http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/entry/crew-statement-reversal-montana-supreme-court-decision

11 replies, 2397 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

11 replies	Author	Time	Post
CREW Statement on Reversal of Montana Supreme Court (Original post)	cal04	Jun 2012	OP
Big K&R for TRANSPARENCY . . .	patrice	Jun 2012	#1
Congress won't do jack.	bluedigger	Jun 2012	#2
Right! Fucking! On!!!!!	LongTomH	Jun 2012	#4
There's someone up in Moab.	bluedigger	Jun 2012	#6
Kicked and recommended.	Uncle Joe	Jun 2012	#3
The most troubling aspect about Citizens United and unlimited corporate	JDPriestly	Jun 2012	#5
It won't change anytime soon	sakabatou	Jun 2012	#7
WHY DO REPUBLICANS HATE DEMOCRACY!	Gregorian	Jun 2012	#8
something could be done	grasswire	Jun 2012	#9
I didn't think SCOTUS would become wise all of a sudden	wordpix	Jun 2012	#10
Locking	cyberswede	Jun 2012	#11

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:27 PM

patrice (47,384 posts)

1. Big K&R for TRANSPARENCY . . .

which will become the ground upon which to build other efforts against corporate-personhood and campaign reform in general.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:30 PM

bluedigger (10,579 posts)

2. Congress won't do jack.

It will take an Amendment, with corporate money fighting it every step of the way.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bluedigger (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:43 PM

LongTomH (3,997 posts)

4. Right! Fucking! On!!!!!

Go to Move to Amend now and see if there's a chapter in your city!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to LongTomH (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:52 PM

bluedigger (10,579 posts)

6. There's someone up in Moab.

I never need an excuse to go there.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:34 PM

Uncle Joe (24,997 posts)

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cal.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:48 PM

JDPriestly (37,760 posts)

5. The most troubling aspect about Citizens United and unlimited corporate

campaign expenditures in my opinion at this time:

The decision does not limit the campaign expenditures of

1) foreign-owned or run corporations;

or

2) corporations that have government contracts. This includes corporations with contracts that are primarily or partially awarded by the very politicians or factions (say defense or interior or energy, you name it) for or against whom they disseminate their ads.

Pretty soon we will find that some of the money our government pays out to corporations to do the government's work is being spent on ads to re-elect the very politicians, the very government that pays out the money.

Citizens United is the most horrendously stupid, short-sighted, political decision that a Supreme Court has decided since Dred Scott. It may even outdo Dred Scott.

Do you realize that corporations will now have the ability to influence through advertising the selection of or impeachment of the Supreme Court Justices themselves? Just wait. It will happen.

There was a huge bumper-sticker effort to rein in the Douglas court back when Brown v. Board of Education was a bumper-sticker issue. That was before all the corporate money was permitted to flood our political campaigning.

Just wait until the Supreme Court decides something that wealthy people don't like -- assuming they ever dare to do such a dastardly thing.

The Supreme Court will react as though they had been hit by shock and awe. I can hear them now: "What???? We thought you were our friends."

I hope I live to see that moment. Citizens United is a disaster. Just think. If the oil companies spend enough money on ads, people won't notice global warming and coastal erosion until after the water is over their roofs. Ahhhhh, the power of advertising.

Some of our defense contractors may soon persuade us that we don't need a government at all. Just let them do all that poorly paid work.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:17 PM

sakabatou (29,076 posts)

7. It won't change anytime soon

The republicans will keep on filibustering nominations.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:39 PM

Gregorian (19,610 posts)

8. WHY DO REPUBLICANS HATE DEMOCRACY!

I know. I just had to scream a bit. I hate this. It's a free ride for the most powerful.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Gregorian (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:17 PM

grasswire (36,696 posts)

9. something could be done

A movement could be started to demand that Congress authorize Obama to appoint more members to the Supreme Court. Even if the movement is not successful, at least beating the drum for court packing would raise public awareness.

FDR attempted to pack the court. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:24 PM

wordpix (12,478 posts)

10. I didn't think SCOTUS would become wise all of a sudden

This is the same group that gave us Dimson for 8 yrs.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:42 PM

cyberswede (11,333 posts)

11. Locking

I'm afraid this isn't LBN - rather, it's a response to the court ruling.

This would be better suited as a reply in this LBN thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014151934

Cannot reply in locked threads

Latest Breaking News (Forum)