Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Will SCOTUS Confront the Results of Citizens United?
(snip)
In Citizens United, the court confidently predicted that unlimited independent corporate spending wouldnt corrupt politicians because it would be totally independent of candidates. The court upheld and praised existing laws that require the disclosure of campaign spending, assuring us that they would provide citizens with all the information necessary to see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called moneyed interests.
But Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has made a mockery of this optimism. In 2012, Walker successfully fought off a recall effort by working hand-in-glove with supposedly independent dark money groups, raising millions from billionaires and corporations with the promise that their identities would not be disclosed. Some of those big secret donors later saw their top priorities pushed into law.
Walker got caught, but an investigation into the scheme was shut down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which was dominated by justices who benefited from at least $10 million in spending from the same groups that had coordinated with Walkers campaign.
The Wisconsin court contorted the law to give its supporters and Walker a get-out-of-jail-free card, issuing a decision that shattered central concepts of campaign finance law while creating new ways for unlimited money to secretly buy influence with elected officials.
(snip)
Breaking new ground, the court declared that secretive coordination schemes like Walkers are constitutionally protected, as long as the coordinated ads dont expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate. At right, you can see an example of a TV commercial thats not considered a campaign ad under this rationale. The target, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) was Walkers opponent in the recall race.
(snip)
That meant that the press and the public could not connect those secret financial interests with the policies Walker pursued in office.
For example, after Walker won the election, his top legislative priority for the next session was passing a mining bill drafted by an out-of-state mining corporation called Gogebic Taconite.
During the heated debate over the bill a proposal met with protest from environmental groups, conservationists and Native American tribes Wisconsinites never knew that the Gogebic Taconites CEO had secretly donated $700,000 to Wisconsin Club for Growth.
The secret $700,000 donation was 22 times greater than the roughly $32,000 that the mining company had disclosed in donations to Wisconsin candidates in 2011 and 2012.
Similarly, the public didnt know that the CEO of Menards Hardware had secretly given $1.5 million to Wisconsin Club for Growth at Walkers behest. After Walker won the election, Menards was awarded $1.8 million in tax credits from the economic development agency that Walker chaired. Menards also benefited from the Walker administrations reduction in environmental enforcement. Under previous governors, the company had repeatedly faced million dollar-plus fines for violating state environmental laws.
(snip)
http://billmoyers.com/story/confronting-citizens-united/
This is a good read.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 989 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Will SCOTUS Confront the Results of Citizens United? (Original Post)
Uncle Joe
May 2016
OP
They certainly seemed to make law with Citizens United taking a narrow decision and using it to
Uncle Joe
May 2016
#4
Yes they re-interpreted the precedent not with the PUBLIC interest in mind but
underthematrix
May 2016
#6
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)1. Is there a CU case pending before the high court?
Uncle Joe
(58,481 posts)2. To my knowledge, no and according to the OP this hasn't been taken up yet.
In the absence of a ninth justice, following the death of Antonin Scalia and Republican senators refusal to grant hearings for a nominee to replace him, the evenly divided U.S. Supreme Court has been steering clear of cases likely to produce a 4-4 deadlock. So whether the justices will take up this politically charged case remains to be seen.
For now, the Wisconsin example provides a sobering look at a deregulated campaign finance landscape: where voters are left in the dark, secret donors get special treatment and politicians and donors can flout the law and buy the judges they need to get away with it.
http://billmoyers.com/story/confronting-citizens-united/
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)3. I wondered because the high court doesn't make law
they interpret it within our constitutional framework
Uncle Joe
(58,481 posts)4. They certainly seemed to make law with Citizens United taking a narrow decision and using it to
overturn decades of precedent.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)6. Yes they re-interpreted the precedent not with the PUBLIC interest in mind but
with corporations. Until Americans recognize that they as consumers are the engines of wealth, we will not be able to have much impact. Consumerism is the most significant enemy of economic justice and I just don't get why people don't get that.
Corporations don't produce wealth consumers do.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)5. Something I've been wondering. nt