I’ve been paying attention to Politics since Kennedy beat Nixon, and never before have I seen so much money from the 1% filling the airwaves with ads, even here in a solidly blue state. Citizens United, as improperly decided by the Fascist Five, has unleashed a floodgate, and unless we close it, before the powers of Corporate Plutocracy and their party learn to take full advantage, elections will become nothing but auctions.
Two-thirds of the $50 million spent on Mitt Romney’s behalf in Ohio has come from outside “super PACs” and other so-called independent groups, and yet Mr. Romney has lagged behind in all of the major Ohio polls. Hundreds of millions in third-party spending from unlimited checks, much of it from undisclosed donors, has also failed to give Mr. Romney a clear lead in any of the other swing states.
If Mr. Romney loses the presidential race — which is far from a sure thing — does that mean the big check writers will declare the process a waste of money and stay out of politics the next time around? Don’t count on it.
This is only the first presidential election in the Citizens United era of unlimited spending, and the first since 1976 in which both presidential candidates spurned the public finance system. All the big players are learning lessons about how the process works in an ugly new world, and will be fine-tuning their strategies once they determine what was effective and what was not.
There may be some changes in how unlimited money is spent, but now that it has been unleashed, only a constitutional amendment or a careful system of regulation can bottle it back up. The need to do so will remain one of the most urgent challenges facing every lawmaker… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
The author missed one key point. Lawmakers who are the beneficiaries of the money flood, mostly Republicans, will have a vested interest in keeping that bottle uncorked. While I fully support either an amendment or regulation to stop the flood, here is an additional strategy. We need to change the makeup of the Supreme Court, because Citizens United would never have been decided in direct opposition to the US Constitution, were the Court not packed with Republican extremist ideologues. If we can keep a Democrat in the White House for the next twelve years, enough of them will probably have retired to restore SCOTUS to sanity and Constitutionality.
Corporations are NOT people!!
Money is NOT speech!!
12 Responses to “Stop the Money Flood!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I suppose that the oil industry will extort maximum profits while they can but an awaking is due soon…
May that be so!
I have followed Politics since Truman — It is appalling and very scary the money being spent to buy the Country ; I never ever thought I would witness the death of our American way of life ;Make no mistake that is what is at stake this election–
The difference in the Parties is crystal clear this time—
I agree. It could not be more clear. Only the very foolish fail to see a difference.
Although there was already a lot of money in politics, Citizens United really let the genie out of the bottle with an explosive "Kaboom poof!"
Considering the number of red states, I rather doubt a constitutional amendment would go anywhere since red states certainly aren't going to ratify it thereby denying the 75% level needed, and the Congress, currently dominated by the Republican/Teabaggers, will not get a 67% majority. And the same goes right now for regulation since the Congress is in Republican/Teabagger hands. But I can see that were SCOTUS more balanced or leaning left, Citizens United could be overturned.
It is definitely time to force the genie back into the bottle and cork it for another thousand years!
It's very hard to put the genie back into the bottle once it's tasted freedom.
That's why I suggested remaking SCOTUS.
Another thing I forgot to note, in thinking about the money being spent by corporations, think how much good that money could accomplish in putting people to work rather than paying political whores! Or how many of America's poorest could be fed with that same money.
It is obscene!!! Corporations might have 'free speech' courtesy of Citizens United, but it is clear that they don't have a social conscience!
Yes, Lynn, it is obscene.
That money could be better spent eliminating poverty by creating JOBS! Isn't that what the job creators were supposed to be doing with their extra net profits due to the Bush tax cuts since 2001?
That makes excellent sense, but the money they are spending is money that gushed up instead of trickling down. Because the money did not trickle down, consumers do not have it to spend, reducing the demand needed to put people back to work.
It's amazing and rather distressing to see the number of Americans who support this decision. It is obviously designed to create corporate control of the country and will not benefit any of the middle class or poor who represent the "other" percentages! I can understand a desire to be loyal to your "Party" – but at what cost? Isn't it evident that this is extremely dangerous to democracy? I don't trust either Party when it comes to being indifferent to mega-bucks, but I would think that any citizen would recognize the dangers inherent in Citizens United!
Lee, while I agree that this effects both sides of the aisle, the difference in degree is extreme.