While the pundits were having a field day Monday with SCOTUS decisions on immigration, another decision was announced with just as important ramifications. SCOTUS declined to revisit its infamous campaign finance decision (aka Citizens United). This was, of course, with the usual 5-4 conservative vs liberal margin. The Court reversed a decision Montana's Supreme Court which had upheld a state law limiting political spending by corporations. In fact SCOTUS used the its own 2010 Citizens United decision as precedent. The majority opinion claimed that “The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the opinion said. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.” Montana’s arguments, the opinion continued, “either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.”
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in the dissenting opinion, stated that "Citizens United itself had been a mistake".
“Even if I were to accept Citizens United,” Justice Breyer added, “this court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the state had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations.”
This decision upholding Citizens United is a travesty. The unprecedented amounts of money pouring into the presidential campaigns and races for Congress via the socalled "Super Pacs" is probably the single biggest threat to our democratic system. To uphold the idea that corporations have 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech (remember Romney's famous "corporations are people too" comment?) would be comical if it were not so very very serious. These "Super Pacs" spend money indirectly on campaigns, with little or no federal or state oversight like drunken sailors on leave. Regardless of party, these "Super Pacs" constitute a clear and present danger to the survival of our republic. They spend spend spend, mostly with the goal of smearing the opposition with no direct linkage to whomever they are supporting. This is mudslinging at its finest and it cuts out the 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech for the 99% of the American people that DO NOT give to "Super Pacs".
As citizens and taxpayers, all we can do is continue to vote and give whatever we can to whomever we want but as INDIVIDUALS.......lets just hope we have a democracy to leave to our children.
Oh and as an afterthought, remember when I stated that the "Super Pacs" spend money like drunken sailors? Well it doesnt take a whole lot of imagination to figure out who these drunken sailors used to spend their money on. Is that what we want our politics to be all about, the "world's oldest profession" ? I sure as heck hope not.
Just my two-cents worth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supreme-court-declines-to-revisit-citizens-united.html?_r=1&ref=politics