If you think that Citizens Unites was the most that the fascist five Injustice of SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional venereal disease) could to to give more electoral power to the 0.1%, you thought wrong. There is now a case before the Court, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, to raise the amount a billionaire can contribute in the aggregate from $123,200 to $3.5 million per cycle. Herr Scalia said $3.5 million isn’t a lot of money!!
While much of the government continued in shutdown mode this week, the Supreme Court was back in business starting off its new term with a controversial campaign finance case. This week, the court heard arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a case that could have a huge impact on the way money influences our democracy.
McCutcheon challenges aggregate caps on how much individual donors can give to candidates and political parties. The current overall cap stands at $123,200 per donor for a two-year election cycle, but McCutcheon could raise that amount to more than $3.5 million.
This week on Moyers & Company, Bill talks to Yale Law School election and constitutional law professor Heather Gerken who warns that McCutcheon has the potential to kill campaign finance reform, already reeling from the Citizens United decision that gave corporations, unions and the wealthy the opportunity to pour vast and often anonymous amounts of cash into political campaigns… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Bill Moyers>
Bill devoted the first half of his hour long show to this.
If we think that this is the best government money can buy (and is buying) now, this disaster will make it that much worse. I am not very hopeful, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court. SCROTUS dominates. Regardless of how much the Fascist Five butchers our Constitution, these facts remain facts.
Corporations are NOT people!
Money is NOT speech!
14 Responses to “Son of Citizens United”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
ROFLMAO…..Constitutional VD…….LMAO. Very apt, Cat Daddy, very apt for these Fascist Bastards. CU 2.0 will be the death of the American PEOPLE's say in anything concerning politics or what happens to them in their lives because of bought and paid for CORPORATE WHORES posing as our 'representatives'. It will be full-blown Fascism then and we can all kiss our country and its heritage goodbye….or will it be….good buy?…..Either way, the American people will be and are being screwed. Goodnight America.
Thanks Dawgie Mama! 😉
They are UNbelievable! Completely beyond polite description! Thanks TC.
YVW, Pat!
There seems to be a disconnect here which appears to be growing via the 5 vs. 4 error of the SCOTUS… $3.5 million would do me just fine for a lifetime… 🙂
I think I could survive quite well on it.
When the Constitution was accepted as the framework upon which our government was built, most people didn't live much past their 50s. The original intent for granting Supreme Court judgeships for life never imagined lifespans of 80 -90 years with tenures to match. The original intent of lifetime appointments to the court was to remove the judges from the pressures of politics. That could just as easily be accomplished today by a finite, one term only appointment with no option for a second term. If coupled with strict, i.e. draconian, conflict of interest provisions (yes, that means you, justice Thomas) might serve to return the court to its original intent.
I agree, and that should inclyde a mechanism to force recusal in the event of a condlict. Note that Obama's appointees have recused themselves on multiple occasions, but never the fascict five.
Three and a half millionprobably isn't a lot of money for Thomas or Scalia. I agree with John Dasef, there should be term limits on Scotus, also senate and house. There would not be so much financial gain if they only served one term..
If they run short of $, all they have to do is suck a Koch.
"…McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a case that could have a huge impact on the way money influences our democracy."
Money influences democracy? I would say it is more like money buying "democracy"…
… the only problem, what money is buying is not democracy (demos=people) but rather money buying "corporatocracy" (corporat= corporations). Citizens United took care of giving corporations personhood, and their money became "free speech".
Huge sums of money already influence American politics, more so I believe than in any other country. Citizens United extended that money further by allowing corporations to influence politics with their money. But there still are limits on the amount of money that can be used. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission seeks to remove the cap on the amount of money one person can (or corporation) can donate to a political campaign.
If we subscribe to "money = power", then McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission could, if upheld by SCOTUS, turn a representative democracy, not to a corporatocracy, but to a plutocracy or an oligarchy, because it would be only the very rich, the 1% of the 1%, that would be in effective control.
One thing I found interesting, and I think it could also go to how the PACS etc are set up for IRS purposes, was a comment that Heather Gerken made late in the interview.
In my mind, that also goes to removing any anonymity for political contributions. For example, aggregate political contributions more that $1,000 automatically should mean that the donors name becomes public, not sheilded.
Another comment that Bill Moyers made at the beginning of the show while describing the current shutdown situation
Unfortunately that is still under way.
In a word, AMEN!
Yeah, I know, I was a little long winded today. I was getting mad and then even mader at the Republicanus/Teabaggers. Hell, they gave me indigestion!
They should all sit on a red hot ingot!