rationalizations 5 Supreme Court justices had to rule in favor of
Citizens United and McHutcheon, let's get to the heart of the matter
and cut away this fluff about free speech.
Citizens United and
McHutcheon are about exertion of naked corporate power while free
speech is just a flimsy mask to cover up the ugly face of corruption.
5 out-of-touch Supreme Court justices that ruled the aggregate $123,000 campaign donation limits as unconstitutional under the First Amendment are wrong on logic, law and
history. It was not McCutcheon's constitutional right that was being violated.
Money is nowhere in the first Amendment. It is an illegitimate court- created doctrine.
Yet predictably so, first
Amendment freedom of speech is the cover that Shawn McCutcheon used
in his published op-ed titled: DonationCaps Hurt Democracy:
the earliest days of our republic we have been able to express that
freedom by contributing money to the political candidates of our
choosing... Getting rid of aggregate limits is not about corrupting
democracy — it is about practicing democracy and being free.”
Court chief justice John Roberts echoed this “see no evil” denial
of corruption by quoting the Citizen's United ruling, claiming
"ingratiation and access … are not corruption". Basically
the only thing that qualifies as corruption under Robert’s overly
narrow and disingenuous
definition of “quid
pro quo corruption”
is the image of a late 19th
century-style robber baron directly placing a sack of bribe money on
the desk of one of their compliant congresspersons.
is there not corruption? McCutcheon slammed his foot on the
accelerator as far as speeding up this vicious cycle of corruption
where the corporate elite buy politicians that will give them
bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks and deregulation. Making the already
rich even richer under these eviscerated election spending laws will
empower and enable them to buy even more politicians in the next
election eventually locking in a long term bi-partisan corporatist
majority. This vicious cycle of corruption is basically the inverse
mirror image version of the Republican’s recurring nightmare vision
of the poor and minorities voting in mass to secure themselves
endless welfare benefits and locking in a permanent Democratic
how can this be “speech” if the plutocrat billionaires celebrate
secrecy and want to hide the identity of which donor is bankrolling
which campaign ad (an issue that the filibustered DISCLOSE act would
rulings made in the flowery and friendly name of free speech would
not be so dangerous and corrupting if the distribution of wealth and
income in this nation weren’t already so grotesquely skewed into
the hands of so few. The
richest four hundred Americans now have more wealth than the poorest
150 million Americans put together. That is why in 2010
the 0.01% of richest
Americans accounted for one fourth of all the money given to
politicians, parties and political action committees.
McCutcheon himself has made an irritating display of inverted
patriotism, revisionist freedom and feigned allegiance to founding
principles by making donations of the symbolically significant $1,776
to 15 different candidates.
according to the Robert's Court, the purported constitutional right of a few hundred
super-rich plutocrats to spend virtually unlimited sums on campaign
contributions is more important than congress’s
right to regulate campaign spending.
financing of campaigns would cause the conspirators for a permanent
corporatist political majority to squeal like a tortured pig in
resistance. But the legislators themselves might actually like robust
campaign finance reform. It would give them the freedom to be
authentic and to actually do their job instead of spending every
possible remaining moment of their week dialing for dollars. If only
candidates were not on such a constant uphill treadmill have to raise
so many millions for media buys, the 0.1% would not have such a
hammerlock control over our political process.
private money free reign to interfere with our public decision making
is an endorsement of highly concentrated power. The dispersion and
accountability of power is the key to a thriving democracy. That is
why we need respect people's ability to run for office without being
tethered to corporate money and for politicians who are already in
office to not have to be dependent upon the corporate elite to give
them the cash they need to run in the first place. Isn’t
it only fair for broadcasters provide free air time to candidates in
exchange for use of our airwaves? Or is that an arrangement which is
forbidden because would foil the evil plot of the oligarchs?