REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court screws Montana's Copper King Law

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1237
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


This sickens me. The law was passed for a very good reason, and sufficed for 100 years to keep Montana relatively free from money overpowering their elections. So now the right-wing Supremes would rather double down on their disgusting Citizens United ruling and FORCE a state to watch the old corruption come back. So much for state's rights.
Quote:

For Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision this week to overturn a century-old Montana law banning political donations by corporations was probably unwelcome. For years, Lessig has campaigned against corporate influence on campaigns, calling the phenomenon “legal, but corrupt” in his 2011 book Republic, Lost. His views have prompted hostility from across the political fence, particularly from his fellow-academics.

Lessig would probably support Montana’s now-overpowered finance law. Originating in 1912, the statute was a late stand against the “Copper Kings”— a trio of industrialists who used their riches to manipulate politicians and society. One of them, William Andrews Clark, was caught in a corruption scandal involving Montana’s State Legislature and a U.S. Senatorial candidate. Likely fed up with such moral lapses, voters delivered a ban to end such vast sums of corporate money serving political ends.

A similar problem haunts America now. In a landmark 2010 case, the Supreme Court handed victory to Citizens United, allowing political campaigns to receive unlimited cash flow from businesses—but also baring a massive loophole. The ruling triggered the rise of Super Political Action Committees (SuperPACs), which can raise money from companies, people, or any associations and spend it to campaign for or against political contenders, provided there’s no collaboration—or at least, none on paper—with a candidate. Political satirist Stephen Colbert mocked the concept by forming a SuperPAC for a faux-presidential campaign, on air, short-circuiting apparent legal safeguards against coordination.

In his book, Lessig mostly protests a more traditional brand of dollar-politics: lobbying. He chastises the “gift economy” that has been set up to peddle politicians to the highest bidder, and bemoans that fund-raising has become “a central activity of Congressmen.” Fundraising, rather than being a barometer of support, has turned into a competition of who can cozy up to more benefactors. Money has commoditized influence over politicians so the wealthy can tilt policy making in their favor, through the cultivation of an overpowering sense of obligation from politician to patron.

Ultimately, SuperPACs and lobbying are just two versions of the same phenomenon: a tight grip on politics by the wealthy. Whatever a corporation’s demographic, it’s most likely a rich syndicate that’s running the show, and a company’s contributions to political campaigns will ultimately drive their interests. Lobbying is the same concept, but is more covert than independent campaigns, and is a subtler rendition of a quid pro quo bribery culture that once heavily populated American politics.

This cash-centric American political dynamic is a sharp departure from the country's founding ideals. The Constitution attempts to foil money’s possible domination of politics by barring gift-giving to politicians, and fixing a congressman’s term at two years to keep him close to the people (Federalist 57 waxes eloquent on this). And while the federal court has ruled the Montana law antithetical to the First Amendment, the court's interpretation becomes muddled when you consider the purpose of the Founders’ words. Since the first Constitutional Convention over 200 years ago, money has found pathways to seep into politics—and indeed, intensify its role.

Lessig sees that we need to mend this, and rightly so. He puts forth four steps for crafting a better legal framework. One of them – that Congress could pass legislation to reform campaign spending – was injured by the Citizens United decision, and salted over this week. Lessig himself sanctions a more radical measure: reforming campaign laws at a second Constitutional Convention, a suggestion some critics ridicule, more balk at, and others call implausible.

But with gradual legislative holes that have left the politics-cash dynamic unchecked, maybe it’s time for just that. http://www.policymic.com/articles/10263/supreme-court-montana-ruling-f
orcing-politics-to-depend-on-money

These are not judges; they are subsidiaries of the right. This should have been an opportunity, now that they've seen the results of Citizens United, to revisit it, or at least let states have the right to negate it to keep their elections DEMOCRATIC. But that's what actual justices, real judges, would have done; these guys bow to their overlords at every chance. America HAS been bought and sold, all three branches of our government and now state governments as well. For all their fancy talk about "states rights", it obviously only means something to them when it benefits the RIGHT. Bastards.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:33 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


That's not fair, Montana likes that law and they chose it, and its a good law for them so why is the supreme court involved?

I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:40 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
That's not fair, Montana likes that law and they chose it, and its a good law for them so why is the supreme court involved?

I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.



...because this is scene as a Constitutional issue, and state law cannot violate the Constitution.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:16 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


But that rule has been in place for a long time, so why do they all of a sudden care? Its been fine before, why not leave well enough alone, everyone's been okay with it for so long.

I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:20 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
But that rule has been in place for a long time, so why do they all of a sudden care? Its been fine before, why not leave well enough alone, everyone's been okay with it for so long.



Simply because it has not been brought up to the Supreme Court before. The Court normally does not go out and look for laws they might find unconstitutional. I'm sure the Citizens United case and the president it set was part of the law getting challenged now.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:56 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I think it is interesting that neither conservatives nor liberals are happy with the court. Each suggests it is a platform of activism to benefit the opposition when the vote is not in their favor.

What do you think a better system would be to make judgment over constitutional matters?

--Anthony



Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


First I would like to ask: When has THIS Supreme Court come down on the side of anything positive for the left? I'm not aware of any such decisions, tho' I certaily could have missed something. This court has been absolutely mind-boggling in its determination to pander to the right pretty consistently, while te right screams about "activist judges"--actually interpreted to mean any Supreme who dares to be activist in anything but what THEY want.

I don't know what a better system would be, but I can sure as hell see that having someone on the Supremes who has CLOSE CONNECTIONS to one side or the other is wrong. Of course everyone has their leanings, but the right wingers on today's Court are active in right-wing things and have no problem being blatant about it.

I guess having Presidents appoint Supremes obviously doesn't work well. Perhaps some independent body tasked with looking into candates' backgrounds to see if they haven't got a record of being very partisan, or something, would be an improvement over Presidents drooling over the hope that a Supreme dies or something so they can put one of "their" people in office. It don't get much more partisan than being President, so they of all people shouldn't be handing out LIFETIME appointments to a supposedly non-partisan court whose word is final.

I've now lost any semblance of respect for the Supreme Court, and given the precedence of this one, I don't expect anything to change, only to get worse.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:37 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:First I would like to ask: When has THIS Supreme Court come down on the side of anything positive for the left?


Today with the Health Care law. Last week with the AZ immigration law.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 6, 2024 02:33 - 4558 posts
The predictions thread
Wed, November 6, 2024 01:46 - 1182 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Wed, November 6, 2024 01:38 - 640 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Tue, November 5, 2024 23:43 - 4679 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Tue, November 5, 2024 23:39 - 69 posts
Election fraud.
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:19 - 39 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:16 - 53 posts
Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:12 - 248 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:57 - 32 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:55 - 40 posts
What kind of superpower could China be?
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:02 - 54 posts
End of the Democratic Party (not kidding)
Tue, November 5, 2024 14:18 - 56 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL