Were U.S. Elections Sold to Corporations So Clarence Thomas Could Reward His Friends?

[marmar]

AlterNet / By Adele M. Stan

Were U.S. Elections Sold to Corporations So Clarence Thomas Could Reward His Friends?
The ethical problems posed by Thomas' involvement in the Citizens United case hardly mark the end of questionable behavior by Thomas and his wife, Ginni.

October 30, 2011 |


When Clarence Thomas took his seat before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991, things were not looking good for him. Anita Hill, a former employee of Thomas' at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, came forward with explosive allegations of sexual harassment against the judge, and she was a credible witness. Thomas needed more than a Hail Mary to survive his confirmation hearing; he needed a major assist.

Enter Floyd Brown and L. Brent Bozell, Republican operatives with a history of making brutal media attacks on opponents; Brown was responsible for the racially charged "Willie Horton" ad run during George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign against former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, in which Dukakis was made to look like a champion of a brutal murderer and rapist.

The two collaborated on the making and distribution of a television ad headlined, "Who Will Judge the Judge?" that targeted three liberal members of the Judiciary Committee whose lives were haunted by prior scandals of their own: Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., Alan Cranston, D-Calif. and Joseph Biden, D-Del. Time magazine estimated that the ad cost $100,000 to air and reaped about $1 million worth of free publicity. Although Biden had a raft of witnesses available who would have corroborated Hill's characterization of Thomas, Biden chose not to call them, as the New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin noted this summer in a comprehensive profile of Thomas and his wife, Virginia (Ginni) Lamp Thomas. The organizations sponsoring the ad were Bozell's Conservative Victory Committee, and Brown's group, called Citizens United.

If that name sounds familiar to you, it is because it is the title of a case that came before the U.S. Supreme Court -- a case whose outcome is commonly described as having opened the floodgates of corporate money into the nation's election system. Citizens United was the plaintiff, challenging a decision by the Federal Election Commission. Justice Clarence Thomas cast his vote for Citizens United, truly a deciding vote in that 5-4 decision. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/news/152901/were_u.s._elections_sold_to_corporations_so_clarence_thomas_could_reward_his_friends/

[Hotler]

1. k&r n/t

[ensho]

2. kick

nt

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[leftyohiolib]

4. Biden had a raft of witnesses available who would have corroborated Hill's characterization of Thoma

wow our own vp is partly to blame for uncle slappy

[Scuba]

5. Look what happens when you put politics over ethics. n/t

[JHB]

9. There was a lot of fault to go around there...

The Democratic leadership at the time wasn't exactly noted for strongly confronting things Republicans actively pushed, and they were eager to avoid another dust-up like with Robert Bork.

Also, in the early phases, Thomas had a sort of default support from black political circles, and other Democrats didn't want to have to go against that on top of the Republicans. It wasn't until Thurgood Marshal made his "black snake" comment that it sank in that Thomas was of a very different stripe and resistance started to gel.

By then things were pretty far along. Thomas had pretty much gotten a pass until the Anita Hill/sexual harassment issue came up. In other words, once something arose for which a major Democratic constituency would dig in its heels and make an issue of it (and which Democratic politicians could not ignore for the sake of expediency.

In my own opinion, the resulting hearings were more to make a show of "doing something" to Democratic women than a serious attempt to question Thomas' fitness for the Supreme Court. That's why Angela Wright and others didn't get to appear before the hearings and only had their written statements added to the record: they weren't on camera, so it wouldn't be in the news cycle, and that brought it down to he said/she said as far as the public was concerned. Republicans were willing to push HARD and the Democrats were not, so we wound up with Thomas (dis)gracing the SC.

[TygrBright]

6. Among other reasons, yes. Next question? n/t

[madrchsod]

7. that`s obvious unless one is deaf,blind ,and dumb

[russspeakeasy]

8. Yes and it doesn't take much for these bottom feeders

to vote your way. A real prostitute has higher standards.