Click the link to go to the written word of Keith's comment and all the comments.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Keith and Congressman Grayson The Decision
Click the link above to take you to the written word by Alan Grayson about the Supreme Court Ruling, He was actually there when the decision came down.....
If you are as mad as I am that the Supreme Court today decided 5{all republican}to 4 to change dramatically the way our elections are going to be held in the future. Please go to this link and sign a petition.
In 10 years there will be no fair elections because all our candidates will be bought and paid for by big corporations, they will no longer be known by states but by who purchases them.
And of course all republicans are absolutely behind this change 100%, and any chance that the congress can put a little pressure to bear on corps will never happen without a bipartisan vote.
If you think that the Democrates have big government well you ain't seen nothin' yet. The tea partiers think they got handed a real peach of a deal. I agree with Keith and Congressman Grayson that in a couple of years there will be no parties to speak of, only Corporations.
Our constitution talks about freedom of speech, freedom from persecution, that all men are created equal in the sight of God. That our Government is for the people, by the people, and of the people not corporations. The supreme Court gave Corporations the status and rights of an individual. Somehow that is just plain wrong.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
SaveDemocracy.netIf you are as mad as I am that the Supreme Court today decided 5{all republican}to 4 to change dramatically the way our elections are going to be held in the future. Please go to this link and sign a petition.
In 10 years there will be no fair elections because all our candidates will be bought and paid for by big corporations, they will no longer be known by states but by who purchases them.
And of course all republicans are absolutely behind this change 100%, and any chance that the congress can put a little pressure to bear on corps will never happen without a bipartisan vote.
If you think that the Democrates have big government well you ain't seen nothin' yet. The tea partiers think they got handed a real peach of a deal. I agree with Keith and Congressman Grayson that in a couple of years there will be no parties to speak of, only Corporations.
Our constitution talks about freedom of speech, freedom from persecution, that all men are created equal in the sight of God. That our Government is for the people, by the people, and of the people not corporations. The supreme Court gave Corporations the status and rights of an individual. Somehow that is just plain wrong.
Supreme Court opens the money gates
The Christian Monitor's View
Supreme Court opens the money gates
By allowing more corporate and union money in federal campaigns, the high court risks corrupting lawmaking. Watchdogs must stay alert.
The Supreme Court on Thursday opened wide the gates to allow more corporate and union money to finance political campaigns – and potentially influence politicians and lawmaking.
That’s unfortunate, and means that the role of watchdogs tracking the money trail will be more important than ever.
It’s not as if corporations and unions have so far had their wallets glued shut. They can fund issue ads that are important to their interests. And they’re allowed to form political action committees that directly support candidates, as long as the donations are collected voluntarily from employees and union members.
But even members of Congress, whose energy is increasingly diverted to fundraising, have long recognized the potentially corrupting effect that big money can have on them. More than 100 years ago they banned corporations from donating directly to federal candidates.
Thankfully, the justices upheld that ban Thursday, as well as disclosure rules about contributors. But in a divisive 5-to-4 ruling, they overturned other important restrictions.
In time for this year’s midterm elections, corporations and unions can now spend directly from their treasuries on ads to support or defeat candidates – as long as those ads are produced independently and not coordinated with a campaign. They may also run ads right up until election day, instead of pulling them 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy grounded the ruling in First Amendment rights. Corporations and unions – like individuals – have a right to free speech, the majority reasoned. “The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,” he wrote.
But Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Indeed, when voters say they want “change” in Washington, the influence of money on politics is the kind of thing they’re talking about.
The high court has the final word, but not the only word. Groups that track campaign fundraising will need to raise their voices when they find wrongdoing or worrisome signs – even as they have more money to watch. Those groups include nonprofits; the news media; and the official watchdog, the Federal Election Commission.
Yet the traditional media are downsizing and the FEC, which has an equal number of Republican and Democratic commissioners, has a poor track record. The FEC could be strengthened if its members were recommended to the president not by the Senate, which has a vested interest in a watchdog with no bark, but by an independent commission.
Transparency is now more important than ever, and so is beefing up the competition to corporate and union donations – small donors and public campaign financing. The Internet has given small donors a much bigger voice, but that can be amplified even further by Congress.
Now is the time for lawmakers to pay serious attention to proposed legislation that would allow House and Senate candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists. If candidates commit to raising a certain amount of small donations, they can qualify for competitive public funds for their campaigns.
Thus, candidates would divert far less energy to fundraising – which can take as much as 40 to 50 percent of the time of members of the House, who face election every two years. And, candidates would be less beholden to monied special interests.
The Supreme Court has significantly altered the landscape of campaign finance. The next election will reveal how the new arrangement works in practice.
Watchdogs must keep their eyes open.
That’s unfortunate, and means that the role of watchdogs tracking the money trail will be more important than ever.
It’s not as if corporations and unions have so far had their wallets glued shut. They can fund issue ads that are important to their interests. And they’re allowed to form political action committees that directly support candidates, as long as the donations are collected voluntarily from employees and union members.
But even members of Congress, whose energy is increasingly diverted to fundraising, have long recognized the potentially corrupting effect that big money can have on them. More than 100 years ago they banned corporations from donating directly to federal candidates.
Thankfully, the justices upheld that ban Thursday, as well as disclosure rules about contributors. But in a divisive 5-to-4 ruling, they overturned other important restrictions.
In time for this year’s midterm elections, corporations and unions can now spend directly from their treasuries on ads to support or defeat candidates – as long as those ads are produced independently and not coordinated with a campaign. They may also run ads right up until election day, instead of pulling them 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy grounded the ruling in First Amendment rights. Corporations and unions – like individuals – have a right to free speech, the majority reasoned. “The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,” he wrote.
But Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Indeed, when voters say they want “change” in Washington, the influence of money on politics is the kind of thing they’re talking about.
The high court has the final word, but not the only word. Groups that track campaign fundraising will need to raise their voices when they find wrongdoing or worrisome signs – even as they have more money to watch. Those groups include nonprofits; the news media; and the official watchdog, the Federal Election Commission.
Yet the traditional media are downsizing and the FEC, which has an equal number of Republican and Democratic commissioners, has a poor track record. The FEC could be strengthened if its members were recommended to the president not by the Senate, which has a vested interest in a watchdog with no bark, but by an independent commission.
Transparency is now more important than ever, and so is beefing up the competition to corporate and union donations – small donors and public campaign financing. The Internet has given small donors a much bigger voice, but that can be amplified even further by Congress.
Now is the time for lawmakers to pay serious attention to proposed legislation that would allow House and Senate candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists. If candidates commit to raising a certain amount of small donations, they can qualify for competitive public funds for their campaigns.
Thus, candidates would divert far less energy to fundraising – which can take as much as 40 to 50 percent of the time of members of the House, who face election every two years. And, candidates would be less beholden to monied special interests.
The Supreme Court has significantly altered the landscape of campaign finance. The next election will reveal how the new arrangement works in practice.
Watchdogs must keep their eyes open.
Supreme Court Opens Floodgates for Corporate Spending in Elections
Batten Down the Hatches: Supreme Court Opens Floodgates for Corporate Spending in Elections
WASHINGTON, Jan 21, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Americans deserve accountability, transparency and ethical standards for corporate electoral activity in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, says Change to Win Chair Anna Burger Anna Burger, Chair of Change to Win and Secretary-Treasurer of SEIU, released the following statement condemning today's United States Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: "Today the US Supreme Court lifted the floodgates and started dismantling century-old restrictions on corporate electoral activity in the name of the 'free speech rights' of corporations--meaning if you are a 'corporate person' (aka a CEO or corporate official), you are now free to hit the corporate ATM and spend whatever of your shareholders' money it takes to elect the candidates of your choice."Unlimited corporate spending in federal elections threatens to drown out the voices of the people who should really be at the center of the political process, i.e., voters and candidates. Unleashing corporate spending will only serve to distort and ultimately delegitimize the electoral process.
"Let's be clear: corporations have already been shilling out a lot of cash for political activities, letting their shareholders and managerial employees know exactly which candidates they want to win or lose elections and paying heavy sums for attack ads, direct mail and other forms of public communication through PACs.
"But with today's Citizens United decision, the Court has given corporate managers the green light to bypass the checks and balances, use unlimited amounts from the general treasury--funds that should be used to increase the value of the business or pay dividends to shareholders--to instead pay for public communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of the candidates of their choice.
Find Solutions for Enterprises, SMBs & Service Providers at the INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference and EXPO East, January 20-22, 2010. Miami, FL."Our democratic process was meant to protect the people not profit margins and today's decision makes the need for an effective system for public funding, effective disclosure regulations, and other reforms of federal elections all the more pressing.
"We look forward to working with concerned individuals, officials and groups to remedy to the greatest degree possible the unfortunate consequences of this Supreme Court decision, through legislation and other appropriate means." Change to Win is a 5.5-million member partnership of five unions founded in 2005 to represent workers in the industries and occupations of the 21st century economy. Change to Win is committed to restoring the American Dream for a new generation of workers - wages that can support a family, affordable health care, a secure retirement, and the opportunity for the future. The affiliated unions are: Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Laborers' International Union of North America, and United Farm Workers of America.
12:24 p.m. ET, 1/21/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)