Goldman/Exxon 2012

Ezra, do you think there is any debate that Mussolini's definition of fascism has come to full fruition here?

I think the greater danger is from Fox. We should thank our lucky stars that the Constitution prevents Rupert Murdoch from doing a Berlusconi directly. Instead they will run some mnaleable Scott Brown hunk and blanket the airwaves with negative propaganda about Obama or whoever runs in 2012. Roger Ailes will be laughing all the way to the bank.

The rest of us are going to stake out some enclaves where we can have sustainable, fairly progressive communities. I really don't know what is going to happen to the rest of the country. The teapartiers are active, and progressives will scream for awhile, but most people are just so passive and, forgive me, ignorant of what is really happening.

In retrospect we were all hopelessly naive about what Obama and the country were capable of. We celebrated while the 30% who hate him (and us) got organized.

Mind you I don't think this is necessary. The Dems are just being craven, sniveling cowards about a race where an over-confident and less-than-competent candidate lost a special election. But their craven reaction is rapidly making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And to think people were saying as recently as the end of last year that the GOP would be wandering in the wilderness for a generation. But what is going to happen now that it is clear that neither party is really competent to govern, and the way has just been paved for the Corps to take over the government completely?

@mimiKatz: "But what is going to happen now that it is clear that neither party is really competent to govern"

Next year, it'll be the Republicans. Then the Democrats. Then the Republicans again. Wait, that didn't work? Democrats again! The base of each party will go through cycles of being excited and motivated by the potential of their candidates, then depressed and demotivated by the reality of them.

BTW, this has got to make television stations and advertising agencies happy. But how much of a difference does this really make? Or am I the only one who takes political advertisements from Exxon and BP and Big Insurance and Big Pharma with a grain of salt?

Couldn't such ads sometimes back fire. As in, why is Exxon so happy about this guy?

Remember, this also lets unions off of the leash.

** "The appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy," **

You know, one can agree with the actual ruling (I don't) and still just wonder how the justices can made this bald-faced false assertion.

Wire, do you think any union has the money to come anywhere near the buying power of just one of the Wallstreet firms? You're joking, right? And people wonder why such a big deal is made out of judicial picks.

To be fair (not that this is a requirement for this blog), shouldn't the title be something like "Goldman/Exxon/AFL-CIO 2012"?

Normally liberals are happy about free speech protections so I am puzzled by this reaction. I can't quite keep up with the contradictions in progressives beliefs so I will just say that while I lament the amount of money spent on campaigns, it was the correct decision with regards to free speech.

"Normally liberals are happy about free speech protections so I am puzzled by this reaction."

Then let me clear that up for you: Money isn't speech!

Really. Not at all puzzling. If you're sincere about your confusion, that is.

I wonder if anybody in the Democratic party will bother to point out that a radical, activist right-wing court has just overturned 100 years of law - allowing corporations to have even more influence in our political process.

Presumably, someone may even quote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which presumably just loves this decision.

Democrats - are you even alive?

"Remember, this also lets unions off of the leash."

If the AFL had one twentieth the money of Goldman Sachs, this might be a consideration.

"Normally liberals are happy about free speech protections so I am puzzled by this reaction"

Corporations aren't people. They are by law required shareholder-value maximizing machines. This essentially makes them sociopaths, who have neither any place in the public discourse, nor (as they are not, of themselves, constituents) any right to it.

Hmmm, Ezra gets paid, by a corporation, to run what is essentially an eternal democratic campaign ad. The he goes on Olberman and Maddow to appear on their perpetual campaign ads. They are both paid big $$ to run their shows by a corporation (GE). But corporations injecting money in politics is corrupt!!

I have no problem with this, as the First Amendment requires this freedom(and also for O'Reilly and Beck and whoever else). But to say that corporate money is evil while writing an opinionated political blog paid for by corporate money, well, I'll leave it to other's judgment whether our intrepid blogger burst out laughing while writing this.

"I have no problem with this, as the First Amendment requires this freedom(and also for O'Reilly and Beck and whoever else)."

You having no problem with this doesn't mean it's not a problem. Personally, I want to see something similar to a Fairness Doctrine come back to the fore. Barring that, Net Neutrality is pretty much the only thing we can hope for going forward.

I am curious how the court squares their decision on CFR and this decision. Campaign Finance Reform was draconian, and if you consider corporate lobbying speech, curtailed speech--especially advertising 60 days before an election.

That they would say Campaign Finance Reform is fine, while saying relatively simple caps on corporate advocacy are unconstitutional . . . Well, I wonder how they arrive at that decision. Or how they reconcile the two.

And Campaign Finance Reform was tailored to help incumbent politician at the expense of challengers. Seriously, how is CFR constitutional while caps on corporate advocacy are not?

“The appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy,”

Correct, we had already lost it...

Kevin,

I haven't read the whole opinion yet, but this case is holding (certain portions) of CFR unconstitutional. McConnel v. FEC is the opinion that upheld most parts of CFR, this is over-ruling some (if not most) of that. I'm slogging through the opinion right now.

If this didn't make it clearer that we're an Oligarchy, I don't know what does.

Well, it will be clearer come November when money flooding into elections turns a landslide into a tsunami.

We're so utterly screwed as a country that it's not funny.

John

@sgaliger:

Truly, you're doing yeoman's work. I'm not up to slogging through court opinions today.

If they are overruling some, if not most, of the CFR decision . . . then, huh? The court hasn't changed that much since McConnel v. FEC--just the addition of Sotomayor, correct?

So the courts opinion is, essentially: "I dunno. Today we just felt like it was unconstitutional. Tomorrow, maybe it'll be different."

Three cheers for the highest court in the land.

Money buys elected office because TV buys elected office, and TV costs candidates money. To prevent selling of government, free TV.

"Directly after they wrote that lines, the court burst into peals of laughter."

Are we sure we don't have a "lead-in-the-aqueduct" type problem going on here?

What I don't understand is how the Court could square this opinion with the first amendment, which clearly states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, other than speech financed by a corporation ...." I guess I'll have to read the opinion to find out.

I'm sure the peals of laughter were nothing compared to the laughter when Mitch McConnell and/or his staff penned the statement which starts:

"For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process."

Yes, Mitch "Bribery is Free Speech" McConnell...friend of the oppressed.

"The appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy,..."
A substantial part of the electorate has already lost faith in this "democracy." Isn't the SCOTUS aware that the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy?Now we can watch as corporate interests openly bribe our elected officials instead of having to do it on the sly.

The First Amendment will always limit the effectiveness of campaign finance reform -- unless we address the much larger issue of corporate personhood. People have the right to free speech. PEOPLE.

-Shane, Omaha