Why Obama’s Super PAC Decision Is The Best Way To Fight Citizens United

[WilliamPitt]

Why Obama’s Super PAC Decision Is The Best Way To Fight Citizens United

Last night, the Obama campaign announced that it would not “unilaterally disarm” in the face of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision unleashing a flood of unlimited corporate campaign spending and paving the way for unaccountable Super PACs. In an email to supporters, the campaign emphasized that President Obama opposes Citizens United and supports strong action “by constitutional amendment, if necessary” to roll back its license for wealth individuals and corporations to buy elections.

In a perfect world, the president’s campaign would never make this announcement, and Obama’s supporters should not be naïve about what this means. When casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife spend $10 million in an attempt to buy Newt Gingrich the presidency, it is impossible to imagine that Adelson isn’t also buying himself special access to the president in a Gingrich Administration. Likewise, when big oil companies pump $1.2 million into Mitt Romney’s Super PAC, it is impossible to imagine that they don’t expect some quid for their pro quo. President Obama is somewhat immunized from this kind of influence buying because, as a second term president, he won’t need to worry about needing his big donors again to get reelected. But, at the very least, every policy a second term Obama supports that benefits a big dollar supporter will now open him up to allegations of corruption.

(snip)

By 2017, when the winner of November’s election will step down, three sitting justices will turn 80. Justice Ginsburg, one of the four dissenters in Citizens United is both the oldest justice and a cancer survivor. If a President Romney has the opportunity to replace just her, it could entrench Citizens United for a generation or more. Conversely, if President Obama can replace just one member of the majority in that case, he could eradicate this blight upon the Constitution and ensure that no future president needs to base his campaign strategy on how hard the likes of Sheldon Adelson is breathing down the back of their neck.

So President Obama didn’t just make the right decision, he made the right decision for people who believe that American democracy cannot be sold to the highest bidder. His decision to play upon the uneven field the Supreme Court laid for him is also America’s best chance to ensure that no candidate will play this same rigged game again. None of this will take away the cloud his decision will raise over a potential second term, but the blame for that cloud rests firmly in the laps of five Supreme Court justices.

Link: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/07/420245/why-obamas-super-pac-decision-is-the-best-way-to-fight-emcitizens-unitedem/

[gateley]

1. K&R. I support this wholeheartedly. nt

[onehandle]

2. President Obama will only be able to keep the SCOTUS status quo in his second term.

It's President Rubio we have to worry about.

[jsmirman]

6. Not necessarily correct

you never know what happens over the course of four years, but the essential division looks like this -

Young Justices:
Roberts
Alito
Kagan
Sotomayor

Everyone else:
Kennedy - 75
Thomas - 63 (and dangerously unhealthy)
Scalia - 75
RBG - 78
Breyer - 73

Odds are definitely in favor of the four to eight years following the upcoming term as being the time for the highest turnover, but no one in the latter group of five is a sure bet to stay on the bench until 2016.

The one who should really step down to "enjoy retirement" - and he has enough "curiosity" that I'm sure another "adventure" awaits him - is Kennedy. That way he doesn't have to do any of the overturning, but if we can win in November, he could clear the way for a new court to overturn all the crappy decisions he's written.

[bongbong]

8. Hard to believe

It's hard to believe that Uncle Clarence is unhealthy. He gets loads and loads of deep, healthy restful sleep while he is sitting in his chair at the SCOTUS.

And no, I'm not exaggerating in the least.

[jsmirman]

15. No, you are not exaggerating

I can't even imagine having the lack of curiosity required to go through that many thought-provoking arguments and never raise a single question.

But he is somewhere around 100 pounds overweight (unless something changed recently, and I missed it).

[bongbong]

17. Yes

I attended oral arguments (open to the public if you figure out how to do it) at the SCOTUS a few years ago, and got to see how he does his sleeping. He leans back in his chair as far as it will go, drapes his forearm across his eyes in a pose faintly (VERY faintly) reminiscent of pondering, and saws the logs.

[GoCubsGo]

13. I suspect Ruth Ginsberg will retire this summer.

I think the court will go through one more session before that time, and I'm betting she retires as soon as it's over.

[Sheepshank]

18. I tend to agree

Ginsburg is very aware of the imbalance that could be created in the court.

I believe she will willingly provide an opening during Obama's 2nd term. IF Obamas re-election bid
l should prove unsuccessful she will hang in there as long as possible.

[musiclawyer]

3. I agree with POTUS

They bring a gun, we can't just bring a knife, even though we would prefer no weapons other than our ideas.

That being said, there are always unintended consequences. One I think is the amount of money POTUS PAC brings in. It will be a lot--maybe not what Romney's brings in, but enough............. And watch for money coming in from Europe. The Europeans dont want more war, which is likely under any GOP POTUS.

[jsmirman]

5. Exactly how I would put it - I won't begrudge him this

if it's a knife fight, bring a knife.

No one is going to give you extra credit while you're bleeding out.

That abomination of a decision must be overturned, but imposing your own restraints in a competitive content where the stakes are so high - that's just self-defeating.

[TheWraith]

7. Exactly. There's a big difference between principle and unilateral disarmament.

Principle is refusing to accept contributions from lobbyists. Unilateral disarmament is allowing the other guy to raise hundreds of millions without trying to compete, because you find it unseemly. Yes, it IS unseemly. But so is standing by and letting yourself get massacred because you don't like the idea of violence.

[FarLeftFist]

4. Beat them at their own game and expose their shallowness. Then watch them WHINE.

[bullwinkle428]

9. Grudging agreement here.

Points well made, sir.

[fascisthunter]

10. K&R (nt)

[SalviaBlue]

11. K&R

[hughee99]

12. Adelson's contributions to Gingrich's campaign will help Obama.

Gingrich didn't have a shot by the time he donated, hell, he's not even in all the primaries. Gingrich's money will be spent to attack Romney, which in the end, will be a bonus for Obama. I doubt that's Adelson's intention, but that will be the end result.

[Major Hogwash]

14. I don't know, I'm kind of split on this decision.

On one hand I agree, but on the other hand I disagree.

I just don't see how this is going to work into the 3-level chess match that President Obama has been playing for the last 3 years.
I mean, it's okay to compromise on some things, but on other things you have to take a stand and refuse to back away from it.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, I'm not even sure they are relevant anymore considering that the Citizens United case came to the conclusion that it did.
Justice Ginsburg will turn 79 this year, and I do not think that we should rely on her to save this country by asking her to stay on the court for another year, or for another term.

It's not fair to her, considering that she has dealt with cancer, and she has pulled her weight long enough. Gawd knows, she has done more to help save this country than most other people have. So, it is up to her to decide when she wants to step down, but I don't think it is fair for people to expect her to stay on the court longer just to save this country from an extracted political fight to name someone to replace her.

[jsmirman]

16. They are really relevant

very depressingly relevant, at times.

Want to sue that corporation that has lied to you and the public-at-large and has now demolished your retirement savings? It's up to the Court to decide when, how, and if you can.

Want some sort of redress because the product you ingested turned out to contain poisons that seriously damaged your health? Better hope the Court hasn't foreclosed your causes of action.

Want to be part of a class action because the computer you paid dearly for is a complete lemon? Well, too late on that one. They've already fucked you out of that one by allowing "take it or leave it" binding arbitration clauses slipped into consumer contracts to keep you out of court. There's the MMWA, but good luck relying on that to get just compensation.

Want to challenge a regulatory agency for failing to do its job, say a regulatory agency chaired by a woman who made a living turning forests into paper and is now charged with protecting our national forests? The Court will decide if a citizen has a right to be heard in the courts (you pretty much don't).

The truth is that as many things as they've messed up already, they can mess up things a lot worse. And many of these bad decisions can be massaged in the other direction if the Court's numbers are ever turned. They pay lip service to stare decisis, but if you pretend really hard that this is a different case, are you really overruling anything...

[Scurrilous]

19. K & R

[mmonk]

20. I'm one of those who thinks he would have raised enough anyway.

It would be nice to see a leader take a stand against it.