The Real Problem with Citizens United (SCOTUS ruling)

[Imperialism Inc.]

The Real Problem with Citizens United
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_real_problem_with_citizens_united

(snip)
Still, as a practical matter, the opinion is just one more step in the direction the Court was already heading. As Nate Persily, director of the Center for Law and Politics at Columbia points out, earlier cases had already substantially limited Congress's power to restrict independent corporate expenditures; Citizens United was just the last nail in the coffin. The real damage to the cause of reform came earlier, with cases that made less of a splash but probably mattered more. An earlier case, for instance, licensed corporations to run independent ads attacking or supporting candidates provided they stopped just short of telling us how to vote. As a practical matter, there's not much distance between an ad that tells voters to "call Senator X and tell her to stop being mean to puppies" and one that tells voters to "vote against Senator X." Moreover, whatever the reform community thought of Austin, Supreme Court observers have long thought Austin was a goner. Even the Solicitor General was unwilling to defend the decision's equality rationale.

The truth is that the most important line in the decision was not the one overruling Austin. It was this one: "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." For many years, the Court had gradually expanded the corruption rationale to extend beyond quid pro quo corruption (donor dollars for legislative votes). It had licensed Congress to regulate even when the threat was simply that large donors had better access to politicians or that politicians had become "too compliant with the wishes." Indeed, at times the Court went so far as to say that even the mere appearance of "undue influence" or the public's "cynical assumption that large donors call the tune" was enough to justify regulation. "Ingratiation and access," in other words, were corruption as far as the Court was concerned. Justice Kennedy didn't say that the Court was overruling these cases. But that's just what it did.

If the Court rigidly insists that Congress can regulate only to prevent quid-pro-corruption, narrowly defined, then Citizens United has implications that extend well beyond what corporations can do.
(snip)

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Isn't it "Citizens United Not Timid" -- ?

An anti-Hillary outfit, so named for its acronym.

No mention of that in the news, though. But let Howard Stern say the word "penis", and it's an outrage.

--d!

[tonysam]

3. I've mentioned David Bossie's central role in the bogus Clinton scandals

It is rather secondary to the fact the high court wants a permanent Republican majority, and the way to do this is to increase the party's funding. The GOP has been hurting the last two election cycles.

[tonysam]

2. It's only about permanent GOP rule, nothing more, nothing less.

"Corporatism" is just a smokescreen after all.

[havocmom]

4. Thinkin that is backwards

Republican party is the smokescreen for the corporations. Has been for a LONG time.

[Imperialism Inc.]

5. While it is certainly true that the GOP is the most reliable recipient of

corporate cash I doubt that corporations care much which party emblem is worn by the the person they buy.