Supreme Court’s Ruling On Campaign Finance Law

Congress & White House's

"Indignation"

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them. Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things (Prov. 28:4-5).

SCOTUS Not To Blame For Corrupt Politicians

Friday, January 22, 2010

SCOTUS not to blame for corrupt politicians

by Stan Transue

American Exile

http://amerexile.blogspot.com/2010/01/scotus-not-to-blame-for-corrupt.html

     In a classic case of misdirection and blame shifting, Congress and the White House are feigning self-righteous indignation over the Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling on campaign finance law. It seems no one is acknowledging what five Supremes and most rational people already know. It is a person’s and a corporation’s (since corporations are people too) right to spend their own money any way they choose. The cause for outrage certainly exists. But Congress and the President blaming the Supreme Court for a valid constitutional ruling is blatant deceit.

     Everyone with a heartbeat knows that Washington is for sale to the highest bidder. This criminal betrayal of the public trust no more originated with the Supreme Court than did the patently unconstitutional law that requires contributors to navigate obscure legal loopholes to pay the bribes that everyone knows they must pay as a normal part of doing business. The whole charade of supposed campaign finance regulation is designed only to hide rather than stop the process of institutionalized bribery that is the standard for Washington politics.

     For the unenlightened and those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious, money is king in Washington. Here’s how the whole con game works:

• Politicians accept campaign contributions, payoffs, perks and cushy private sector jobs in exchange for writing, promoting and voting on laws that are designed, not to secure citizens’ rights, but to abuse those rights for the sake of their real masters.

• Corporations who want to survive under such lawlessness are compelled to jump in the game with their own lobbyists, bribes and backroom deals. Those with the deepest pockets buy the most politicians who in turn make sure that laws benefiting their sponsors get passed and laws that will hurt them get defeated.

• Regardless of what a politician promises while campaigning, his or her actions in office always serve the interests of their largest contributors. This includes any campaign finance reform bill that is passed as well.

• When the adverse effects of these laws on average citizens make the whole scam too obvious to ignore or misrepresent, the same politicians who voted for them make a showy public display of indignation and contempt for the process. When things get really dicey, they grudgingly concoct some new toothless bill to “correct” the problem in an effort to dispel public outrage. Thanks to our notoriously short attention spans and Washington’s deft manipulation of the news cycle this usually takes the heat off for long enough to resume bribery as usual.

     The ultimate irony of this current fracas is that the Supremes (at least five of them) were doing their job. That is to hand down rulings based exclusively on the constitutional validity of the cases they hear – nothing more or less. So when five Justices of the Supreme Court fulfilled their sworn duty to repudiate an unconstitutional law, they are due acknowledgment, not condemnation.

     On the other hand, when Congress and the President pass laws that they know are unconstitutional at the behest of their exploited corporate collaborators, are the politicians blamed for their corruption? No. Instead, corporations are maligned in the media and in Congressional hearings for their vile manipulation of the political process. And the crooks that perpetuate the whole scam pass themselves off as victims of corporate greed and malfeasance. It’s really a tidy little con game – as long as We the People tolerate it.

     And tolerate it we do. Why? Because the game of bribery has us hoodwinked as well. Smiling criminals promise us (insert the unearned government perks of your choice) paid for out of the largess of the federal redistribution mugging and we race to the polls to vote for them hoping for our little piece of the loot. Politicians bribe each other to pass their pet bills to garner favor with their large contributors. Most outrageously, this process is no longer even secret. They boldly admit the bartering of the public trust as if it were the way things are supposed to be.

     For example: When the Economic Recovery Act of 2009 was rejected by the House of Representatives (presumably on moral or constitutional grounds since that is the alleged basis for legislative decisions), the Senate openly admitted adding $150 billion in “sweeteners” to the bill. Then suddenly, those Representatives who previously found the bill unacceptable experienced an epiphany that allowed them to vote in favor of it. Ironically, this scenario played out simultaneously with the “scandal” of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich offering Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder. Same process, just a little more “honest.”

     When wrangling for votes on Obamacare, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana sold her health care vote for $300 million and then bragged about it. A Senator from Nebraska was threatened by his party that a military base in his state would be closed if he did not vote for the bill. That same Senator then agreed to support the bill in exchange for an agreement that the other 49 states will pay for the entire cost of Medicaid expansion in his state.

     So when SCOTUS rules that a campaign finance law is unconstitutional, we must remind ourselves of two important facts: the people who wrote and voted on that bill knew it was unconstitutional when they did it. The corruption the bill was intended to address was not corporate corruption, but political corruption – politicians selling themselves like hookers, eagerly trading their virtue and our rights for a quick payoff. And like prostitutes, blithely ignoring the inevitable consequences of their acts. But lest we start feeling a bit too superior, many of us have been doing the same thing, otherwise the system would not have become so entrenched. When we are so easily duped into bartering our sacred rights for illusory “security” and “free” handouts, how much moral indignation can we rightly muster? Oh America!

‘Fighting’ Obama Hits Supreme Court Over Campaign Finance

Jan 23, 2010

‘Fighting’ Obama hits Supreme Court over campaign finance

By Patrik Jonsson

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100123/ts_csm/275541_1;_ylt=A2KIKvZcAV1LNE8BOksGw_IE;_ylu=

X3oDMTE2NWZsaHU5BHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDZXYt4oCYZmlnaHRp

     Atlanta – Fresh off a fighting stance at an Ohio event, President Obama aimed a haymaker at the Supreme Court in his Saturday morning address, saying a 5-4 ruling striking down the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law undermines the Republic by giving “voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

     In unusually testy language, Mr. Obama vented his frustration at the end of a tough week for liberals that saw the election of a Republican in dark-blue Massachusetts, the potential demise of broad-based healthcare reform, and the crash of the liberal radio network Air America. But the Supreme Court’s ruling, which lifted some limits on corporate and union campaign spending, represents perhaps the gravest threat of all to Americans since it could mean the end of “common sense legislation” regarding healthcare or the environment, Obama said. Republicans, meanwhile, hailed the ruling as a tribute to free speech, which GOP chairman Michael Steele said “strengthens democracy.” (Wasn't one of the crafters of the law a "Republican" and wasn't the president who signed it a "Republican?" Short term memory loss for some?)

     Lobbyists had a banner year. Although Roll Call reports that K Street lobbyists had a banner year in 2009, Obama told Americans that his administration has “pushed back” against special interests to make sure the White House is “the people’s house.” The ruling on Thursday gives corporations – and, most notably, foreign businesses – undue influence on US elections, Obama said.

     “This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy,” Obama said. “It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don't. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act. I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” The case in question, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, focused on a conservative group’s financial expenditures to promote an anti-Hillary Clinton movie just before last year’s presidential primaries. McCain-Feingold prohibits that kind of expenditure for ads targeting individual candidates for 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

     Court: money = speech. Equating money with speech, the court’s one-vote majority said the law “takes the right to speak from some and gives it to others,” thereby depriving the “disadvantaged person or class the right to use speech …to establish worth, standing, and respect.” Dissenters on the court criticized the idea that the Framers had intended to equate corporate and individual rights.

     Obama told Americans he has already begun to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to the ruling. "We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done," he said. Still, as the Monitor’s Gail Russell Chaddock reports, the ruling leaves Democrats with few options. The ruling shows that tectonic shifts in the political and legal landscape are throwing up barriers to Obama’s campaign promise to limit special interests. But the President promised Americans, “I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.”

     Many conservatives, however, say the court’s decision highlights the country’s philosophical divide, with Democrats’ ideals now backed into a corner. “To those for whom MoveOn.org and the countless left-wing 527 operations are the forces of truth and justice, and corporations the font of rich evil men of the 1930’s plutocratic cartoons, this case is a disaster for the commonwealth,” writes Clarice Feldman on the conservative Pajamas Media website. “But for those of us who think free speech is inviolate, and more important in the context of elections than it is in flag burnings or obscenity cases, this decision is a long overdue righting of a preposterous error of legislative judgment.”

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81,

enacted March 27, 2002, H.R.2356)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

     The BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act is United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.

     As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

     The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;

     The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds (Totally unconstitutional, banning freedom of speech).

     Provisions of the legislation were challenged as unconstitutional by a group of plaintiffs led by then-Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, a long-time opponent of the bill. President Bush signed the law despite "reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising." He appeared to expect that the Supreme Court would overturn some of its key provisions. But, in December 2003, the Supreme Court upheld most of the legislation in McConnell v. FEC.

     Subsequently, political parties and "watchdog" organizations have filed complaints with the FEC concerning the raising and spending of soft money by so-called "527 organizations" — organizations claiming tax-exemption as "political organizations" under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 527), but not registering as "political committees" under the Federal Election Campaign Act, which uses a different legal definition.

     These organizations have been established on both sides of the political aisle, and have included high profile organizations such as the Media Fund and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. 527s are financed in large part by wealthy individuals, labor unions, and businesses. 527s pre-dated McCain-Feingold but grew in popularity after the law took effect. In May 2004, the FEC voted to not write new rules on the application of federal campaign finance laws to 527 organizations.

     Although the FEC did promulgate a new rule in the fall of 2004 requiring some 527s participating in federal campaigns to use at least 50% "hard money" (contributions regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act) to pay their expenses, the FEC did not change its regulations on when a 527 organization must register as a federal "political committee" -prompting Representatives Shays and Meehan to file a federal court lawsuit against the FEC for the Commission's failure to adopt a 527 rule. In September, 2007, a Federal District Court ruled in favor of the FEC, against Congressmen Shays and Meehan.

     In December 2006 the FEC entered settlements with three 527 groups the Commission found to have violated federal law by failing to register as "political committees" and abide by contribution limits, source prohibitions and disclosure requirements during the 2004 election cycle. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was fined $299,500; the League of Conservation Voters was fined $180,000; MoveOn.org was fined $150,000. In February 2007, the 527 organization Progress for America Voter Fund was likewise fined $750,000 for its failure to abide by federal campaign finance laws during the 2004 election cycle.

     In June 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., that BCRA's limitations on corporate and labor union funding of broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election are unconstitutional as applied to ads susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Some election law experts believe the new exception will render BCRA's "electioneering communication" provisions meaningless, while others believe the new exception is quite narrow. The Federal Election Commission's interpretation and application of the new exception during the 2008 election cycle will determine the true scope and impact of the Court's decision.

     In June, 2008, the section of the act known as the "millionaire's amendment" was overturned by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Federal Election Commission. This provision had attempted to "equalize" campaigns by providing that the legal limit on contributions would increase for a candidate who was substantially outspent by an opposing candidate using personal wealth.

     In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, regarding whether or not a heavily political documentary (about Hillary Clinton) could be considered a political ad. In January 2010, the Supreme Court struck those sections down, saying, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” Specifically, Citizens struck down campaign financing laws related to corporations and unions; law previously banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. The minority said the court was making a mistake treating the voices of corporations as similar to those of people.

They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them. Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things (Prov. 28:4-5).