"The 2010 election is turning into a class war. The wealthy and the powerful started it."

[babylonsister]

The Shadow Class War of 2010
Posted on Oct 10, 2010

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.


The 2010 election is turning into a class war. The wealthy and the powerful started it.

snip//

This extraordinary state of affairs was facilitated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s scandalous Citizens United decision, which swept away decades of restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections. The Republicans’ success in blocking legislation that would at least have required the big spenders to disclose the sources of their money means voters have to operate in the dark.

The “logic” behind Citizens United is that third-party spending can’t possibly be corrupting. The five-justice majority declared that “this court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

You can decide what’s more stunning about this statement, its naivete or its arrogance.

If one side in the debate can overwhelm the political system with clandestine cash, which is what’s now happening, is there any doubt that the side in question will buy itself a lot of influence? If that’s not corruption, what exactly is it?

And how can five justices, who purport not to be political, sweep aside what elected officials themselves long ago concluded on the subject and claim to know what will or will not “cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy”? Could anything undermine trust in the system more than secret contributions to shadowy groups spending the money on nasty ads?

The good news is that the class war is bringing a certain clarity to politics. It is also another piece of evidence for the radicalism of the current brand of conservatism. This, in turn, is forcing Democrats to defend a proposition they have been committed to since the days of Franklin Roosevelt but are often too timid to proclaim: that government has a legitimate and necessary role in making economic rules to protect individuals from abuse.

more...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_shadow_class_war_of_2010_20101010/

[mediaman007]

1. The only issue has always been: corporate vs. individual rights

Everything else is red herring!

[jaxx]

2. And who gave them the right to buy an election?

The last line of the article. Fingers point to the SC...and what's in it for them?

[babylonsister]

4. Yep, the SC. We are now just beginning to see what

a dangerous decision theirs was. I think the word democracy has been rendered irrelevant.

[bigmonkey]

15. Now just beginning to see!?!

Frankly, I was desperately, crushingly depressed by that decision. It was obvious from the moment of the decision that the consequences were horrifying, nearly logically necessary that it be a calamity.

What is it with this "let's wait and see" stuff? Can't anybody do deductive reasoning any more?

[babylonsister]

16. Yes. The midterms are the first elections since

the SC made this decision.

[bigmonkey]

18. No. The consequences were inescapable once the decision was made.

"Waiting for the evidence" means, in this case, "waiting until it's too late." That's my point. Logical consequences.

[WinkyDink]

3. SO glad that Republican justices are not activist!

[Ikonoklast]

5. There is NO transparency.

If China decides it wants to finance political campaigns whose end result would be them owning a U.S. Senate majority beholden to Chineses interests, there is no way we would ever know.

[ThomCat]

7. If Bin Laden himself were still alive and wanted to buy elections

he could spend billions to buy any US elections he wanted and nobody would be allowed to know it.

THAT is what the conservatives have given us! They just gave our entire government to any hostile foreign power willing to spend the money to buy our elections. Who the fuck needs terrorism now?

:grr:

[ThomCat]

6. What I want to know is, why can't we impeach the 4 primary assholes

on the Supreme Court who gave us this decision that turns over our entire government to corporations?

They have shown that they make decisions based, not on precedents, but on politics.

They have shown that rather than ruling in favor of the citizens, they rule in favor of corporations. Their presumption is always that citizens don't have rights unless narrowly proven that they must, but corporations do unless narrowly proven that they shouldn't.

They have expressed a willingness to put religion ahead of law. Especially Scalia.

If we could impeach Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas we could really restore some sane law to this country. :(

[Scuba]

20. We need a Constitution Ammendment ...

...prohibiting political spending by corporations or any other entity or individual not qualifying as a person with citizenship in this great country.

[ThomCat]

21. Yes, we do. But why can't we impeach them too?

:(

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JustAnotherGen]

10. I disagree

In regards to race . . . for 30 maybe 35 years - Republicans have convinced poor white people that they are more like absurdly wealthy and simply 'rich' white people than they are OTHER poor and middle class people in America.

The reality is? It's us against them. All of us (in my p.o.v.) include people like me (just making over $200K per year as a single never married person, no children) and downwards. Ditto for 'families' in the 250K range and downwards.

I might have put just over $1.5 million in my retirement account at the age of 37 (this year) - but I'm smart enough to know . . . I've more in common with the single woman in NJ making $45K a year than I do with Meg Whitman.

[dkf]

9. It's funny that the epitome of class warfare is media commercials to EJ Dionne

I imagine that the pools of people who are affected by campaign commercials will shrink as people use DVRs to run through them.

[trayfoot]

12. You have a good point!

I really had not thought about that before.

[w4rma]

13. That money isn't only being spent in that way. You're naive to think that. (nt)

[dkf]

14. No details or links?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. To those who continue to assert that their vote doesn't matter. That politics

is a scam and therefore don't vote, I have three words for you:

THE SUPREME COURT!!!!!!!

[Old and In the Way]

17. A gift from the Republican SCOTUS majority to their political counterparts.

Sure, the GOP can't raise nearly enough money from their base to compete with Democrats...but who needs the base for money when you have corporations willing to pay top dollar to get their opinions and agenda into law?

“this court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

The Republican Party totally agrees!

[DrToast]

19. Warren Buffett four years ago

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”