I wonder if Justice Samuel Alito will whisper that this isn’t true, as he famously did when the president said much the same thing during his 2010 State of the Union address:
Sen. John McCain says the Supreme Court ruling that led to formation of super PACs was “one of the worst decisions I have ever seen.”
McCain, whose name has been synonymous with the push for campaign finance reform, also says, quoting, “I predict to you that there will be huge scandals associated with this huge flood of money.”
McCain was referring to Citizens United, the court’s 2010 ruling against limits on spending by independent organizations. The justices based their decision on freedom of speech principles.
In a very real way, we’re not witnessing the people decide who will run against Obama in the fall. We’re witnessing a contest between Jon Huntsman’s father, gambling magnate (and close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu) Sheldon Adelson, a bunch of Texas oil men and religious hucksters, and the shadowy Wall Street forces behind Romney. Each of these people or groups have their own horse in the race, and they can pummel us with five, ten, or twenty-five million dollars of negative advertising per state to make sure retail politics and community organizing mean little to nothing.
Even before the Citizens United ruling, this country was ruled by oligarchs. But we had a fighting chance to overrule their preferences, and we often succeeded. That’s no longer true. Until we can get a Supreme Court that will overrule themselves on Citizens, our democracy will be a bad joke that only breeds cynicism, apathy, and violence.
Will John McCain help us get that Court?
Of course not.
.
A functioning legislature could make a difference, however … Corruption in American History and Mugwumps.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Has anyone else noticed the immediate effect of Citizens United on punditry? Now, whenever the pundits discuss any of the Republican candidates and their plans for the future, the discussion goes like this: (1) name of candidate; (2) when candidate plans to arrive in the next primary state; (3) how many SuperPACs said candidate has; and (4) what ad-buys are planned for the near future.
I don’t know if it would do any good, but I’d like to hear everyone repeat “Citizens United is the Dred Scott of our time” like Cato the Elder repeated “Carthago delenda est.”
I, too, would like very much to know how this would proceed.
meant to respond to the comment below about how to overturn …
that’s how my day’s been going
I’d like to see a discussion of how Citizens United could be overturned. Suppose Obama is re-elected, and is able to make an appointment that will change the balance of the Court. Then what?
The Court can’t rehear a case that has already been decided. There has to be a similar case that comes up from the lower courts. But how could there ever be a similar case? The provisions of the election law that were at issue in Citizens United have been swept away by that decision. Nobody can bring a case under those provisions, because they don’t exist anymore.
If Congress passes new legislation addressing election financing, and a case is brought under a new legislation, then the Court can revisit the issues that were decided in Citizens United. But does anybody see any new election laws coming out of this Congress?
I think Citizens United is here to stay. And I agree, it is the worst decision since Dred Scott.
This is a similar case — and it will certainly go to the Supreme Court.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme-court-corporate-spending_n_
1182168.html
“Nobody can bring a case under those provisions, because they don’t exist anymore.:
No, that’s not exactly how it works. What you need is a lower court decision that significantly challenges the factual allegations and/or legal reasoning on which Citizens United was based. That’s why formal dissenting opinions are so important. Admittedly this doesn’t happen very often, but it happens. And on such a widely disputed decision as Citizens United, it’s far more likely. I don’t find myself agreeing with John McCain very often.
I, too, would like very much to know how this would proceed.
Here is something to think about. A total of $42 million was spent in a single state senate race in the recalls in Wisconsin last year. That’s $42 million for about 16 months remaining in the term of a state senator whose district would be substantially redrawn (to be safely in Republican hands) during the next general election. The amount of money that is going to be spent on elections in 2012 will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before.