Skip to content

Selling Democracy, Supreme Court Style

01/24/2010
by

Guest Post: Elecpencil

As I tried to write a post on the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance, I was just unable to put my frustrations and thoughts on this issue into words, but much to my delight, I read a blog post from a blog that I highly respect and asked to re-post his thoughts on this subject here for Dare To Dream readers:

Democracy For Sale

In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Bush V. Gore. In a ruling of five to four they ruled for GW Bush. The five conservative judges basically ruled that if their candidate was winning it was time to stop counting all the votes. It was surely a vote against democracy. A strange part of the ruling had never happened before. It was the part that said, that this case could not be used as precedence in any other case. In other words, next time the conservative candidate might be the one who doesn’t want the vote counting stopped.

Somehow after that vote the people of the United States rolled over. They did not lynch these five judges for destroying the democratic right to have your votes counted. Americans are just to polite or more likely dumb and easily distracted.

When Bill Clinton was elected president he did not win by a 50% majority. That was because of third-party candidate Ross Perot winning 19% of the vote. During the Clinton presidency, Rush Limbaugh started his shows with an America held hostage countdown. As far as he was concerned because Clinton didn’t get 50% of the vote he was not the legitimate president. In 2000 GW Bush won election by court decree, despite Gore having 500,000 more votes. Rush had no problem with GW winning this way. He never announced, “America held hostage by the Supreme Court.”

Once again while Americans were distracted taking sides in the Leno/Conan war the five conservative members of the Supreme Court stabbed democracy in the back. They didn’t this by ruling for the corporate take over of our country. They have made it legal for corporations to spend any amount of money they want to advertise for the candidate of their choice. They will also be allowed to spend unlimited amounts in attack ads against the candidate they don’t want (you know the one against corporate control of our country).

Don’t expect Rush or any of those corporate stooges over at FOX NEWS to have any problem with a corporate owned USA.

Explained better by President Obama

Here is one politician on the side of the people fighting to end corporate control of elections.

There is a section on my blog called, “Armchair Activist.” I think it’s important and you may have ignored it in the past. This issue about corporations taking over our democracy cannot be ignored. Therefore I am putting a link you need to sign to fight back right in this spot. Here are more sites as you can’t sign enough to protect your rights: For Fair Elections and Move to Amend.

Says Senator Charles Schumer, D-New York: “The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November’s elections. It won’t be Republicans. It won’t be Democrats. It will be corporate America.”

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio doesn’t understand the ruling as he has said, “The Supreme Court ruling is a victory for fee speech.” I searched various Tea Party sites around the country and found they all think it’s a victory for free speech. Which just confirms as many people having been saying, that the Teabaggers are corporate pawns.

All of this corporate controll reminds me of the 1975 movie Rollerball. I note that the movie is set in 2018 which isn’t far off. Just a movie or a premonition?

States of Mind: A Song for the Herd

Tim Hawkins: Corporate Worship Song

“Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.~ President Grover Cleveland

There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done … Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.
– Theodore Roosevelt

5 Comments leave one →
  1. 01/24/2010 6:42 pm

    When Obama heard about the Supreme Court decision on campaign ads, I could just hear him have his “Ruh Roh” experience (Astro from Jetsons). For the past year, Obama’s done nothing but tick off corporations. He’s had the Big Three auto industry by the rings in their collective noses, making demands on them since the Government essentially owns them. Then there was the take over of different financial groups and banks……and Obama making demands regarding executive payrolls and bonuses. This has not bode well with these corporations and I doubt if Obama has been on their Christmas list.

    Suddenly the corporations have been told by the Supreme Court that these same corporations now have the right to financially support different political pacs and Obama has a lump in his throat.

    But as much as Obama thinks the Constitution is flawed, he can’t go changing it to meet his own needs. He can rant all he wants about the decision, but the Supreme Court is the final decision. The only recourse Obama has is if the democrats go and make McCain/Feingold law, but I don’t think that will be an easy task.

    So Obama needs to learn that things won’t go his way all the time and accept what the Constitution says. The Constitution trumps him any day.

  2. 01/24/2010 7:49 pm

    As much as the “Right” attacks “activist Judges” this is a case of “activism” to the extreme right.

    The Court has handed foreign owned corporations more control over our elected officials than the average American citizen.

    Hugo Chavez is not a popular figure in Republican circles but now they have turned over uncontrolled influence on the American political scene to his money and Citgo, along with many other foreign entities.

    Where is the “rights” outrage in this?

    Is this in the well being of the nation? I think not.

    Is this good for our National Security? I think not.

  3. Duh permalink
    01/24/2010 11:46 pm

    I think Kennedy got it exactly right.

    “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”

    “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought… The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”[Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority].

    P.S. Tristan — Hope you don’t mind me commenting all over your site. The discussion is a cut above most political blogs I have stumbled across lately. The posts are, at times, thought provoking (even if I disagree with them).

  4. 01/25/2010 12:44 pm

    I don’t mind the many comments, in-fact I do like a lively discussion and/or debate and thank you for using Dare To Dream to express your views.

    I truly believe that we have lost the art of civil debate and discourse. My idealism keeps me having faith that we can return to a time that intellect, debate and civility knows no party line.

  5. 01/25/2010 12:51 pm

    “The only recourse Obama has is if the democrats go and make McCain/Feingold law”

    Ok, my turn to do a “Ruh Roh” moment.

    The Supreme Court just overturned the McCain/Feingold law…that’s what we are discussing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: