Event Calendar
May 2013
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>


User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search


Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

The baby of Rosemary's Baby

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 10:28:52 AM MST


Matt mentioned that Montana's ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns was recently thrown out by Judge Jeffrey Sherlock on the basis of the SCOTUS Citizens United decision. While his post touched on the in-state provocateurs and their possible foreign backing that sought to overturn the law that protected Montana's democratic government since 1912, I thought I'd quote from this New York Times article comparing 2010's secret corporate donations - via Citizens United - to Nixon's illegal corporate-fueled slush fund:

In this year's midterm elections, there is no talk of satchels of cash from donors. Nor is there any hint of illegal actions reaching Watergate-like proportions. But the fund-raising practices that earned people convictions in Watergate - giving direct corporate money to a campaign and doing so secretly - are back in a different form in 2010.

This time around, the corporations are still giving secretly, but legally. In 1907, direct corporate donations to candidates were legally barred in a campaign finance reform push by President Theodore Roosevelt. But that law and others - the foundation for many Watergate convictions - are all but obsolete. This is why many supporters of strict campaign finance laws are wringing their hands.
Certainly, it is still illegal for corporations to contribute directly to candidates. But they now have equally potent ways to exert their influence. This election year is the first since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allows corporations for the first time to finance ads that directly support or oppose political candidates. And tax laws and loopholes have permitted a shadow campaign network of Republican-leaning nonprofit groups to collect a flood of anonymous donations and spend it widely.

If the Republicans make big gains in the House and Senate on Election Day, there is rare bipartisan consensus that they will owe part of their victory to the millions of dollars raised and spent by these nonprofit groups, much of which has come from businesses.

The groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the American Action Network and Crossroads GPS, which is linked to the Republican strategist Karl Rove, have committed to spending well over $150 million this year. President Obama has railed against these groups as they have poured money into races in which once-secure Democrats are hanging by a thread.

But the attacks may have only helped build the groups' fund-raising muscle. Crossroads GPS and a sister organization, American Crossroads, have received more than $100,000 in small donations through the Web, when they had expected most gifts to come in big checks. And the groups' leaders have only grown more influential - far more influential than the Republican National Committee, led by Michael Steele. Evidently, the corporate donors love having a secret route to influence politics and elect Republicans without showing their hands to a Washington still controlled by the Democrats.

So much for open elections and the democratic process.

Citizens United steamrolled previous court decisions that opined corporate involvement in our electoral process was unsavory and destructive to representative government. That is, the SCOTUS - or the radical elements therein - now considers the corporation "a burnished image of the good citizen." But given the involvement of corporations in politics in the weeks and months after Citizens United, you'd have to agree with the 1990 SCOTUS majority opinion in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which "lambasted" the entry of corporations "into the political arena" because of "the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas."

Wheee. Americans, meet your new overlords.

Jay Stevens :: The baby of Rosemary's Baby
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Corporations are made up of people (0.00 / 0)
"And really, if you are going to tax something, should that something have a say in who chooses how much to tax it? Didn't we get rid of a king a couple centuries ago because of that?"

MTLiberty:  Are you saying that before the Citizens United case that people working for corporations couldn't vote? Or couldn't donate to the candidate of their choosing?  Last time I checked, corporations were made up of people, who can vote and donate.

Using your logic MTLiberty, my house and my car should also get to be able to vote and donate to candidates. After all, my house/property and my car are taxed and "these somethings" don't "have a say in who chooses how much to tax it."

Suffice to say, whether big money's going to the R's or the D's, it's place in current American politics is a huge threat to our representative democracy.



MTLiburty is trying to set up a false equivalency (0.00 / 0)
with his statements about SEIU. The've spend 1.3 million in the latest reporting period with the FEC, ending Oct. 14th.

And there are a lot of conservative wackos making the case that corporations deserve a vote, now that they have first amendment rights under Citizen's United. WHich of course, if the corporation is controlled by foreign money, and said corporation should "have a say in who chooses how much to tax it", he's really advocating that we open our democratic process to foreign agents. Which, as I remember is rather treasonous.


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Purely Hypothetical, of course, but - The best candidate for the Republicans for US Senate is:
Corey Stapleton
Dennis Rehberg
Marc Racicot
Champ Edmunds
Steve Daines
Harris Himes
Kreyton Kerns

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox