Home > Uncategorized > More reaction to Supreme Court rollback of campaign finance laws

More reaction to Supreme Court rollback of campaign finance laws

Post on January 21, 2010 by 7 Comments »

imagesThere is still mostly silence from our elected officials on the Massachusetts election and what it might mean for health reform. But Congressman David Price did release a few remarks on the Supreme Court decision to reject corporate campaign spending limits. For more on the issue see the SCOTUS blog. And, of course, read the excellent post by Chase.

Here what Price says:

PRICE: SUPREME COURT CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULING WILL CORRODE ELECTORAL PROCESS

Washington, D.C. – Rep. David Price released the following statement today after the Supreme Court overturned significant portions of existing campaign finance legislation in its 5-4 decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a major setback for the integrity of our democracy. By striking down a cornerstone of the bipartisan McCain-Feingold legislation, this decision will open the door for special interest groups and corporations to spend millions to influence the outcome of political campaigns. I have no doubt that it will have a corrosive effect on the electoral process.

As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion, the Court’s ruling represents ‘a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self¬-government since the founding [of our nation]… While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.’

As a longtime advocate of transparency and integrity in our nation’s electoral process, I call on the leadership of Congress to move swiftly to close the gaping loophole that the Supreme Court has left in our campaign finance laws.”

Before the Supreme Court considered the case, Rep. Price joined with several other lawmakers to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief arguing that the Court should uphold existing bipartisan campaign finance legislation. That brief can be found here.

Possibly related posts:

  1. Lawmaker’s campaign questioned about Brooks Brothers suits
  2. NC murder rate falls while death penalty sleeps
  3. Debunking a myth about the Racial Justice Act
  4. Top of the morning

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments (Closed):7

  1. Hilary
    January 21, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    We are under attack! The five-justice majority needs to be arrested for treason and tried by military tribunal!

  2. north state politics
    January 21, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    And in the fine print of the decision was the tag line:

    This decision brought to you and paid for by the Supreme Court Justices of the United States of Big Business.

    An absolute travesty. The end of democracy. “We the people,” not we the corporations.

  3. IBXer
    January 22, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Corporations are people…

    The sole purpose of the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause is to prevent Congress from passing laws that penalize or imprison people who engage in poltical speech. This law clearly violated the 1st Amendment.

    The ability to criticize politicians in a public forum is absolutely vital to having a successful democracy. This decision will strengthen democracy, not weaken it.

  4. dmin
    January 22, 2010 at 10:32 am

    IBXer: Sounds like you believe the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to be unconstitutional, since it “prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.” Foreign nationals are obviously people, at least no less than a corporation can be a person. If you believe foreign nationals should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns, than you must believe there are limits to the “people” covered by the first amendment.

    Just because corporations are considered people under the law, should that entitle them to unfettered political free speech? Corporations may be considered people, but they can’t vote–should other “people” who can’t vote be allowed to make unlimited campaign donations? What about foreign owned companies, or foreign nationals–should they also be allowed as much political free speech as they can afford to buy?

    I can see an argument that voters should not be limited, but if you can’t vote, should you be able to buy the influence this ruling allows?*

    * I have not had the opportunity to read the ruling, but this was my understanding.

  5. Ashley St.Claire
    January 22, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    The Supreme Court, and the dictatorship of the corporations.

    January 22, 2010 by politicalsnapshots.wordpress.com

    The Supreme Court, and the dictatorship of the corporations.

    “It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans,” President Obama.

    “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

    As if the chocking and oppressive corporate influence in the U.S. politics is not enough. As if the majority of our elected officials are not in the pockets of corporate interests. As if the millions of dollars needed to run a competitive campaign for governor and congressional elections have not made politicians dependent on the generosity of the corporations. As if the hundred of millions of dollars needed for presidential election did not skew the political landscape towards the corporate interests already, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they wish, without any limits, to support or oppose political candidates running for office.

    It is clear, that the influence of money in U.S. politics has damaged the democratic process in the country. The power of corporations on the political institutions has made citizens feel impotent. With millions of unemployed, with rising foreclosures, and mounting economic insecurity, our politicians are not focusing in finding ways to improve these dire predicaments. Rather, their total energy is spent in finding new ways of making their corporate masters happy. After all, corporations are not spending billions of dollars a year on no return. When they are investing billions on our so-called elected officials, corporations know what the profit is going to be.

    Political Parties, the Democrats, as well as the Republicans have sold the interests of the people that voted them in to office, for cool cash. Corporations have made the outcome of elections to be dependent on huge amounts of money. This has corrupted the political system. The consequence, of course, has been a continuous erosion of the democratic system.

    With this pro corporate ruling, what the Supreme Court of The United States has done is to put out the last flicker of a democratic light. The ruling is also a threat to freedom and equality as we know it. And, most of all, in one stroke, the Supreme Court has paved the way for the dictatorship of the corporation.

    Professor Mekonen Haddis.

  6. IBXer
    January 25, 2010 at 11:23 am

    dmin, your argument is a straw man. The 1st Amendment was written to protect the rights of US Citizens. It guarantees your right to speak out against the government and it guarantees your right to freely associate with others.

    Corporations are contracts among people. In this context, we are talking about US Citizens who have formed an association and are participating in political speech to protect their own interests.

    Just because you don’t like their interests of their association doesn’t mean you the right to take away their ability to engage in political speech.

  7. euanthes
    January 25, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    It is my understanding that corporations have special benefits under the US Income Tax Codes. Benefits that individual citizens do not receive at tax time. Therefore, if corporations want to be treated as individuals in terms of free speech, then they should be treated as individuals in terms of their taxes. Now we should send them their new 1040′s and let them pay the government as individuals. They should be in the 84percent bracket. What a great revenue source for the government. By the time they pay their “just” taxes, they won’t have much left over to buy campaign adds- like the rest of us individuals!