Is the stage set for Citizens United Round Two?

Last December – the Montana State Supreme Court ignored the Citizens United ruling – and continued its ban on corporate election spending – upholding a 1912 law known as the Montana Corrupt Practices Act. According to the Act - "a corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." But those corporate interests – in this case known as the American Tradition Partnership – that were upset by this law are now petitioning the Supreme Court to have it reversed.

The lead attorney for the American Tradition Partnership – James Bopp, Jr. – who assisted with the Citizens United legal argument – filed a stay with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Wednesday calling for the Montana’s law to be overturned. As Bopp said, "[i]mmediate relief is needed to prevent irreparable harm to the Corporations' First Amendment free-speech right." It’s likely the court will strike down the Montana ruling – thus for a second time ruling that corporations are people and money is speech, without looking at the real world consequences of such a ruling.

As Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson – who even dissented in the case in January – wrote, "In the real world of politics, the 'quid pro quo' of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty…And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely." He’s right – and as long as Citizens United stands – then our democracy is corrupted. Time to go to MoveToAmend.org to fight for a constitutional amendment to kick corporations out of our democracy.

Comments

DRichards's picture
DRichards 8 years 1 week ago
#1

Berry,

It certainly appears that it is not the public, but the party establishment that decides who the president will be (by rigging the elections so that your only choice is their candidate).

Berry's picture
Berry 8 years 1 week ago
#2

Ron Paul is Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, All these man have the qualfications to lead us from this Quagmire we are facing today. > Business insider Ron is Secretly Taking Over GOP~http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-maine-caucuses-gop-takeover-2012-2

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 8 years 1 week ago
#3

Democrat/Republican = TweedleDee/TweedleDum ...stooges for the ruling elite.

Berry's picture
Berry 8 years 1 week ago
#4

Palindromedary > Very aware of that fact. Sometimes one has to wonder who gave science the right to make a doomsday bomb, And So, without our consent or approval ? "Testing too? And than again , Some say, boys will be boys! Eye will be looking at party's outside the box too. Ron is about the only honest one in the bunch. What will it hurt to stop these insane war's/ Ron Paul does not know verything, and I do not agree with evrything he says, But stopping the wars is big in my book, and a great way to start our recovery. Paul has gone against his own party many times. Paul stands by the constitution. This system as we know is not perfect. Eye for one would like to see the war stop, and perhaps a chance again will arise to work things out.. Did you ever go to Las Vegas, Where Millions of dollar's are throw away very minute from one player for fun and for a relaxing time! Some May lose 100 millions in one day ! That kind of money could run communities to be independent and have a secure life for everyone plus the kids. Lets not vote on the chatter . Look at their voting records.

masquaw52's picture
masquaw52 8 years 1 week ago
#5

I'm afraid Tom is correct, but I would like to hope that the supreme court has the seen error of its way and that there will be changes in that decision.

KassandraTroy's picture
KassandraTroy 8 years 1 week ago
#6

Whatever the SC decides to do, we probably won't hear much about it on the Corpse NOOZ. But, it oughta be interesting. The right Blats continously about ":state's rights" in terms of discrimination, but I doubt they'll pay much attention to THIS.

Still, it is obviously a challenge to the Constituionality of bribery and high crimes and misdeamenors of all public officials. That this was EVER decided so broadly is tantamount to a corporate cou.

I think the Founder's missed a couple of lines in the constituion about the Supreme Court. Way too much power resides with these people. Of course, that was why O'Conner didn't want a Democrat (Al Gore) to appoint these "Justices" it was all part of the NWO plan

willcuts 8 years 1 week ago
#7

Petition for Redress of Grievances

We believe this Petition for Redress is the right thing to do, based on the founding precedent and our First Amendment rights.

A petitioned that you reverse citizens united v federal election commission 130 S.Ct.``76 (2010)


We the people have the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. And rights codified in the United States Constitution.
· We are entitled to life, liberty, and property, free speech.

· We have the right peaceably to assemble, consider our grievances, petition the three branches of the Federal Government; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory and proclamations, defamatory declarations, and commitments against the same, are illegal.

· We the People of the United States of America, do claim, demand, and insist on, as our indubitable rights and liberties that the federal government must be answerable and accountable to the people; which cannot be legally taken from us, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without our own consent.

We through Congress have given limited personhood to corporations. And being there creator, entitle them to own property. Any other entitlements should never exist, at least not until a corporation can be jailed, executed, or die.

Therefore it is petitioned that you reverse citizens united v federal election commission 130 S.Ct.``76 (2010)

willcuts 8 years 1 week ago
#8

The supreme court got so strong because congress is not setting the rules, as the constitution says they can. Also the Constitution was passed,rattifyed, and can be amended by a 2/3rds vote. Is not a 5/4 vote UNCONSTITUNAL?? JUST PASS A NEW LAW, With the preamble " corporations are not people, but to allow them to own property, we give them limited PERSONHOOD. Therefore.................

Berry's picture
Berry 8 years 1 week ago
#9

DRichards > You are quite right, as we watch the money talks, oh "I mean, show unfold. " Who is Ron Paul! Just A courageous radical, so do not pay any attention to that man behind the curtain.....

!

mitteldorf's picture
mitteldorf 8 years 1 week ago
#10

"...without looking at the real world consequences of such a ruling..."

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what SCOTUS is doing. They know perfectly well what the real world consequences are going to be, and that's the whole reason behind the ruling. Do you imagine they care so much about free speech that they've ruled this way on the basis of principle ? Do you imagine that the huge advantage that this gives to the Republican party is just an incidental biproduct of a philosophical stand that they feel compelled to take for the sake of logical consistency?

How about Bush vs Gore? Do you imagine for one moment that if D and R had been reversed and Gore had been momentarily up 600 votes that they would have ruled to "stop the counting"?

George Reiter's picture
George Reiter 8 years 1 week ago
#11

I think that the State of Montana will prevail. The U.S. Supreme Court has a fight in their Court. The state of Montana has rights in the subjective. The State of Montana is not ruling above the U.S. Supreme Court Law, but is making a legal decision according to their mandate and is being subordinate to the law. The decision of Citizens United sets the stage and the state of Montana limits the decision according to their sights. In other words, you have every right to cross the street, but you cannot “Jay-walk”.

Craig Bush's picture
Craig Bush 8 years 1 week ago
#13

5 Justices created a "special" class with "special rights. These special class (Scalia's words) of corporate entities can spend as much as they want without constraints for it is a violation of our rights not to hear them? They get a big voice while we get a little voice. There are no "special" class of people in a free society. For our supreme court to create one is a misread of our constitution and subverts the very essence our forefathers tried to prevent from happening. To allow a ruling upper class to control us is a direct attack on our democracy.This would be like allowing the Torres to take over and control our politics after the revolution. We must amend the constitution to reign in this power grab by the republicans using a handful of people on the supreme court. Move to amend .org is a first step. To be more comprehensive we must add 2 more justices, 3 six year term limits with the last one a re-appointement requirement, and strict restrictions on conflict of interest rules.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 8 years 1 week ago
#14

DRichards: Thanks for that link. I never thought I'd be watching anything on Fox Snooze...but held my nose this time to be frightfully surprised. I agreed with nearly everything this guy said.....even though everything he said started off with "what if..."! I am told they do that, along with "some people say..." a lot on Fox Snooze. I agreed with everything except for his inference that Ron Paul might be different. You know that they must really be desperate if they are actually telling the truth about our corrupt political system...including both Republicans and Democrats.

I think Ron Paul is very much like the pre-elected Barack Obama...he has a gift for saying things that people may want to hear just to get elected. Although he scares the crap out of most of us who don't want to see Social Security and other social programs trashed. I'm not sure that Obama is really helping us much though.
--------------------------------
Whether Ron Paul knows it or not, and the same with Barack Obama (although I'm sure he is quite aware of it now), nothing will change in the direction of pre-election rhetoric. They are all lies, unless they are really dumb enough and uniformed enough to actually believe it themselves, that they bark out rhetoric to hook people's votes and are not so committed once elected.

People should watch this YouTube clip and think real hard about everything this guy said (sounds like a lot of what I have been saying all along)...except maybe that Ron Paul would be different...because I believe Ron Paul won't be any different than any of the other past Presidents...nor do I think anyone else would be, as well.

Nothing will change at the ballot boxes, except window dressing, no matter who is elected...it is merely a contest of dummies..and Obama has been the smartest of them all..one of which.. who is chosen to wear the "emperor's invisible clothes" while the real puppeteers are pulling the strings. American elections are a lot of fury signifying nothing...except for the further erosion of our freedoms, liberties, and financial well-being that we are all being hoodwinked out of.

By all means...continue to play along with the grand, just-pretend democracy. Pretend we still have a democracy. Vote for Obama if you want to really tick off the Republicans. I might...just out of a wry sense of irony..and I'd really love to tick off the Republicans...
really...they are the epitome of disgusting excuses for self-serving, greedy, and heartless human beings..just above those weak Democrats who sell us out. Vote for Ron Paul, or Jill Stein, or even Roseanne Barr. It won't really matter..except, of course, if the Republicans win..then they will be happy...and I'll be sad....we'll all be sad! The godfather organizations will set them all straight on who is really controlling this country no matter what dummy is there to take the heat....and blame.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 8 years 1 week ago
#15

So I ran across this "transcript" of what Judge Napolitano said on that YouTube video mentioned before....a transcript put out by FoxBusiness web-site.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/2011/10/03/what-if-const...

And after having read all of the "What ifs..." I realize that most are "What if the government...." did this or can do that ....all implying that the bad old government from the very beginning of our history is corrupt. Problem is "Which government is he talking about...the one that has programs for keeping people from starving to death because of the rich wolves' greed and trickery? Or the one that, especially of late, is controlled by those wolves. No, I don't get the impression he is referring to the later and, in fact, would support such a biased government.

Not only that but it looks like Fox cut out, in their transcript, all of those remarks Napolitano said about Reagan and other Republican and Democrat Presidents. So much for "Fair and Balanced"...which most of us all knew was a brazen lie to begin with.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 8 years 1 week ago
#16

So I ran across this "transcript" of what Judge Napolitano said on that YouTube video mentioned before....a transcript put out by FoxBusiness web-site.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/2011/10/03/what-if-const...

And after having read all of the "What ifs..." I realize that most are "What if the government...." did this or can do that ....all implying that the bad old government from the very beginning of our history is corrupt. Problem is "Which government is he talking about...the one that has programs for keeping people from starving to death because of the rich wolves' greed and trickery? Or the one that, especially of late, is controlled by those wolves. No, I don't get the impression he is referring to the later and, in fact, would support such a biased government.

Not only that but it looks like Fox cut out, in their transcript, all of those remarks Napolitano said about Reagan and other Republican and Democrat Presidents. So much for "Fair and Balanced"...which most of us all knew was a brazen lie to begin with.

vorykua's picture
vorykua 8 years 1 week ago
#17

Just heard Elliot Spitzer on Real Time with Bill Maher say that he AGREED with the Citizen United decision! Thom you have got to take this guy and Ron Wyden by the ear and spank them! Democrats are just shooting themselves in the foot with this positions. its a gift to republicans, i cant believe it!

"The Saddest Thing Is This Won't Be Breaking News"

Thom plus logo As the world burns, and more and more fossil fuels are being used every day planet-wide, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels passed 416 ppm this week at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. In the 300,000 years since the emergence of modern humans, carbon dioxide levels have never been this high.

Latest Headlines

Who rejected United States-North Korea peace talks?

There were conflicting reports on Sunday regarding a recent proposal for United States-North Korea peace talks which was allegedly made before North Korea"s recent nuclear test

U.K. Pound Falls As Markets Get Brexit Jitters

Bloomberg said on Monday the pound had sustained its biggest fall against the dollar in 11 months

Clinton: I'll defend Israel but push for 'two-state solution

Hillary Clinton believes both Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz "missed the mark" with their approach to the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Hartmann combines a remarkable piece of historical research with a brilliant literary style to tell the grand story of corporate corruption and its consequences for society with the force and readability of a great novel."
David C. Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World and Agenda for A New Economy
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor, producer, and environmental activist
From Cracking the Code:
"No one communicates more thoughtfully or effectively on the radio airwaves than Thom Hartmann. He gets inside the arguments and helps people to think them through—to understand how to respond when they’re talking about public issues with coworkers, neighbors, and friends. This book explores some of the key perspectives behind his approach, teaching us not just how to find the facts, but to talk about what they mean in a way that people will hear."
to understand how to respond when they’re talking about public issues with coworkers, neighbors, and friends. This book explores some of the key perspectives behind his approach, teaching us not just how to find the facts, but to talk about what they mean in a way that people will hear."