Showing posts with label buying congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label buying congress. Show all posts

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Resolve to Overturn 'Citizens United' Spreads Through the States | The Nation

Resolve to Overturn 'Citizens United' Spreads Through the States | The Nation:

'via Blog this'




Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
Since then, Super-PACs and corporations have spent record amounts of money in elections nationwide. Corporate spending soared during the 2010 election cycle to $294 million, 427 percent over the previous midterm elections in 2006. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer both suggested that given these “huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance,” Kennedy’s assertion doesn’t hold and the court should reconsider its ruling.
It will have the opportunity to do just that on Thursday when it considers the Montana Supreme Court’sdecision in December to uphold the state’s century-old ban on corporate political expenditures in state elections. In February the US Supreme Court informed Montana that it could no longer enforce that law until further notice, and now it must decide whether to hear the state’s case. This is perhaps the most serious challenge to date to the Citizens United decision.
In a recent New York Times op-ed, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer writes that the effects of not being able to enforce the state’s anti-corruption statute “are already being felt here.” He describes “corporate front groups funneling cash into our legislative races,” and bills “ghostwritten by a host of industries looking to weaken state laws,” including overturning a state ban on the use of cyanide to mine gold, and developers seeking “to build condos right on the edge of our legendary trout streams.”
Schweitzer notes that he vetoed the bills but “these big players will eventually get what they seek” if they are allowed to continue their efforts to buy the electoral process.
It is that kind of corruption—which Justice Kennedy minimized—that has moved dozens of local communities across the country to speak out during Resolutions Week, an effort to pass local and state resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. Over 100 resolutions have already been proposed.
People don’t want to see a repeat of Wisconsin, where more than $63 million was spent in the recall election ($50 million went to Walker)—much of it from out of state, including $24 million from outside groups. Local public officials also realize that they can’t raise the kind of resources a handpicked, corporate-favored candidate can now access. There is also an obscenely exorbitant presidential campaign on the horizon with a price tag expected to reach $2 billion or more, including hundreds of millions of dollars flowing in from wealthy and corporate interests. In May alone, conservative groups spent $20 million in just nine swing states and Michigan.
Legislators have clearly reached their own conclusion that there is an “appearance of corruption.” Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have joined Montana in asking the Supreme Court to uphold the state’s ban on corporate expenditures. This coalition is a mix of red, blue, and purple states, including New York, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia. Senators John McCain and Sheldon Whitehouse also filed an amicus brief in support of Montana,writing, “Evidence from the 2010 and 2012 electoral cycles has demonstrated that so-called independent expenditures create a strong potential for corruption and the perception thereof.”
This Resolutions Week, many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including co-chairs Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison, are supporting city and town councils and state legislatures as they push for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Local efforts will be held across the nation: from Baker City, Oregon, to Huntsville, Alabama; Wichita, Kansas, to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; Provo, Utah, to Corpus Christi, Texas. Dozens of localities have already approved similar resolutions.
Original post: http://www.thenation.com/blog/168346/resolve-overturn-citizens-united-spreads-through-states

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Badger Blue, Times Two: Contempt, thy name is Fitzgerald

Badger Blue, Times Two: Contempt, thy name is Fitzgerald

LP - Who is Scott Fitzgerald and why does he need to be removed from office?

BECAUSE I WAS THERE.

I was there in the committee room on the evening of
March 9, 2011, the night a partial Wisconsin Senate rammed through the bill
killing collective bargaining for public employees. Not in the hallway. Not in
the gallery. In the room. I was standing ten feet from Fitzgerald, on the
other side of the table at which he was seated. Don't ask me how or why, it is
a long story for a different day. What matters is that I was THAT close. Close
enough to observe him, evaluate his body language, and hear his words without
amplification. For those who don't work with me, I and my coworkers make our
living in part by watching and evaluating people to determine their credibility
and truthfulness. It is a skill that comes unconsciously to police officers.


That night I watched in utter horror as Scott Fitzgerald ran the sword
through the belly of Wisconsin democracy. With Fitzgerald at the helm, he and
his Republican cohorts steamrolled, at breakneck speed, what should have been a
deliberative, transparent, and reflective process. I bore witness as the rule
of law disintegrated in this man's grasp.

I watched him ignore another warrior in this fight, Representative Peter Barca, as Barca asked those pesky
and annoying questions such as "what exactly is in this bill we are voting on?"
(Fitzgerald himself said "changes" had been made, and Barca clearly had not been
given the opportunity to READ IT before voting). Or another obnoxious question
of "why are we violating the open meetings law and not providing proper notice,"
while Barca clutched a copy of the REPUBLICAN Attorney General's opinion on the
issue. When I say Scott Fitzgerald ignored Barca, I mean that he literally
spoke over him as if he wasn't even in the room. In Fitzgerald's world, there
is no room for dissent, and the rule of law can be broken at will to further an
agenda. However, in my world, ignoring a colleague, and dismissing his very
presence as a human being, is disrespectful beyond words.

As this unfolded in front of me, I looked in Scott Fitzgerald's eyes. What I saw was
pure, unmitigated contempt. It was so apparent that it almost dripped off of
him. He couldn't begin to hide it, and I seriously doubt he even knows
how.

Contempt for Peter Barca. Contempt for the 30 or so people watching
this from the small committee room gallery, who were truly struggling to not
come unglued. Contempt for the thousands of citizens who were streaming into
the Capitol on the news of this cloak-and-dagger legislative charade, and whose
growing roar could be heard from within the room itself. Contempt for the
hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin citizens who had marched in the snow and the
cold to have their voices heard. And, most certainly, contempt for the
thousands of citizens who just had their voice in their workplace stripped
without apology in order to further the interests of corporate campaign
contributors.

Friday, January 6, 2012

After Santorum Left Senate, Familiar Hands Reached Out - NYTimes.com

After Santorum Left Senate, Familiar Hands Reached Out - NYTimes.com

LP- The well connected continue to tell people to get a job and not take free handouts as they accept all the free handouts they can get from the people who have been bribing congress for years.