Citizens United 2.0? Supreme Court Could Further Open Door to Money in Politics

[ProfessionalLeftist]

More fine material from CMD/PRWatch:

The U.S. Supreme Court could open the door to even more money in politics than it did in the disastrous 2010 decision Citizens United v FEC as it considers a new case challenging limits on how much wealthy donors can give directly to federal candidates and political parties. If the court sides with the challengers in McCutcheon v FEC, political power and influence in America would be further concentrated in the hands of just a few wealthy donors.

Citizens United Flawed in Light of 2012 Elections, but McCutcheon Might Be Worse

The Citizens United decision was premised on the notion that expenditures made "independently" of candidates are less likely to have a corruptive influence than direct contributions to candidates and parties.

The five justice Citizens United majority extended the reasoning established in the 1976 Buckley v Valeo case and held that limiting corporate independent expenditures does not serve a compelling governmental interest, since "the absence of prearrangement and coordination undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate [and] ... alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments."

The experience of the 2012 elections demonstrated why this reasoning was flawed.

MORE...

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11989/citizens-united-20-supreme-court-could-further-open-door-money-politics

[brooklynite]

1. This one doesn't bother me...

Right now I'm limited to $5,200 per candidate, which is not being challenged, but I'm also limited to the number of candidates I can give to, which seems arbitrary.

[Berlum]

2. Good thing we have the Vatican, Inc. (R) represented on the Supreme Court

That way we can all rest assured that "moral order" will be imposed.

[Nye Bevan]

11. YES. The Vatican Inc. is also represented in the Vice-Presidency.

And in the House minority leadership.

[1-Old-Man]

3. How about an alternative, Federal finding of elections only and a maximum 60 days campaign cycle

[ProfessionalLeftist]

6. GREAT idea! I'd go for that. n/t

[brooklynite]

9. Just needs a constitutional amendment...

...and an agreement as to what constitutes "campaigning".

[Nye Bevan]

12. Essentially the First Amendment would need to be abolished

in the context of election campaigning.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. The very rich are the ones pushing these legislations which would aid their profit margins.

The Koch brothers are said to have been major funders of the group "Citizens United" who managed to pass the monstrous bill of the same name. If you can purchase politicians friendly to your needs for business-friendly legislation (such as hacking away at the EPA), life is so much easier.

The leaked 2006 Citigroup Plutonomy memo, "The Plutonomy Symposium: Rising Tides Lifting Yachts" is must-read for all interested in why things are as they are, with all of the attacks upon unions, the middle class, income inequality, why there is no "trickle-down", etc.

https://www.box.com/shared/9if6v2hr9h

[ProfessionalLeftist]

5. +1

Definitely required info and required reading!

[Demo_Chris]

7. This link deserves it's own thread. n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

8. Already on it :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022410977

[Chiyo-chichi]

10. "the absence of prearrangement and coordination

undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate ... alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments."

This may be the biggest joke in the history of American politics.