Power to the Corporations, Baby!

[Donnachaidh]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/citizens-united-anniversary-money-politics

AT&T's "personal" rights, campaign donations from China, and other absurdities one year after Citizens United.

A year ago today, the Supreme Court handed down its game-changing decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The 5-4 ruling threw out decades of limitations on the amount of cash corporations and unions could spend to influence elections. Arguing that those limitations curtailed the First Amendment rights of corporations and unions, the majority of the high court effectively opened the campaign-cash spigot to its maximum setting, enabling a spending free-for-all.

Outside donors, most of them anonymous, dumped almost $300 million into last year's midterms. Among them were rich individuals, such as housing titan and GOP benefactor Bob Perry, and corporations and unions, like Dow Chemical and the AFL-CIO.

So where do we stand 365 days later? How dramatically has Citizens United altered the way our leaders get elected? And can we expect more changes to campaign finance law in its wake?

It was the post-Citizens United political playing field that defined the 2010 midterm elections. Shadowy groups like Karl Rove's American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, American Action Network, and Commonsense Ten sprung up to capitalize on the new ground rules. The rush of outside spending came mostly from the right, which outspent the left by more than a two-to-one average, $191 million to $94 million.

Only after they'd conceded 63 House seats and six Senate seats did Democrats and liberal organizations grasp how much power these independent spending groups had been handed. "Post-2008 election, there was a certain amount of complacency," says Joan Fitz-Gerald, president of America Votes, which oversees a coalition of progressive groups active in elections. "We always need to understand that the electorate is always going to see some kind of campaigning going on."

Fitz-Gerald went on, "This is the way it's going to be, unless we have radical changes on the Supreme Court."

MORE at the link --

[azul]

1. Was there a litmus test for new congresspeople 2010:

global warming deniability? If so, will facts take a back seat in legislating by these geniuses?

Money to morons, or to those rascals able to fake it convincingly. Heaven help us now, we be ruled by the love of money.

[DCKit]

2. "Only after they'd conceded 63 House seats and six Senate seats..."

The screaming here was deafening WHEN that ruling was made, not after the fact.

I don't recall our few media personalities, President Obama or other (D)s in the public spotlight taking a "wait and see" attitude, either.