Meet your New Supreme Dictators!
**This picture is not mine.**
UPDATE: There’s not been a ruling yet as far as I can tell; I might have gotten the date wrong. Anyway, no verdict yet. I’ll stay posted.
Three years after Citizens United……..
We’re at it again. The Supreme Court of the United States will decide the case McCuthceon v. FEC. Believe me, if the plaintiff wins, which is likely considering the fact that every suit the Roberts court heard involving campaign finance, restrictions were struck down.
The main plaintiff is Shaun McCuthceon, a filthy rich guy from Alabama who wants to dump cash on elections so crazy teabaggers win. Luckily, there’s a limit to how much money filthy rich people can dump on elections.
Shaun McCuthceon, with help from his friends at the Republican Party, wants to change that. Really. WHAT THE HELL DOES HE THINK A SUPERPAC IS FOR?
Basically, McCutceon wants to strike down common sense laws designed to prevent corruption. The GOP needs an edge. Their approval ratings are at a record low now, so, as usual, they cheat.
Striking down the law could lead to Congress putting fundraising even higher on the list of priorities. As the government responds less and less to its people, this is the last thing we need.
A little while ago, I wrote a post on how much of a priority fundraising has taken in Congress. Working on that post, I listened to a shocking This American Life piece on campaign finance. In Act III, John McCain (who along with Russ Feingold sponsored the McCain-Feingold Act that aimed to keep money out of politics) says of SCOTUS:
The questions they asked it showed they had not the slightest clue as to what a political campaign is all about. The role of money that it plays in political campaigns and I remember when Russ and I walked out of there, I said, “Russ,” I said. “We’re gonna loose and it’s because they are clueless.”
Feingold pointed out:
It’s never been this way since 1907…that when you buy toothpaste or detergent or a gallon of gas that the next day that money can be used on a candidate that you don’t believe in. That’s brand new.
Also from the episode:
Money in the political system helps explain why oil companies get big subsidies even while their business is booming; why the government provides flood insurance for rich people to build beech houses in hurricane zones; why corn syrup that goes in soft drinks gets federal subsidies and fruits and vegetables do not. …… It’s why we have a system where even though we passed a comprehensive health care reform bill it’s still illegal for the federal government to negotiate drug prices….People needing a new cancer drug pay eight or ten times as much in America as in any other country.
But the scariest part definitely comes in Act II, which discusses the implication of Citizens United
Even without spending the money, in a lot of instances, there will be changes in laws that’ll benefit special interest because of the threat of millions of dollars in undisclosed contributions to bludgeon somebody who thwarts them.
That’s just with Citizens United imagine what would happen if a member of congress could be lured to make a bad vote, not just by the threat of a super pac attack but by the promise of 500 grand if only they vote a certain way.
We need to get money out of politics. Now.
Stop Right-wing Extremism 
Sure. Start with the union money funding the Democrats.
You seem to forget that in most elections Dems outspend Republicans, largely because of the unions.
But I know, it;s “right-wing extremism” for management to have a place at that table.
First: I don’t care who put it there: there’s too much money in politics. There’s a place for people and organizations funding campaigns, but on a lot less smaller scale than we see now. There’s a major difference between small, disclosed donations to help a candidate travel around the district on a bus and a secret billionaire paying for political attack ads the other guy can’t afford.
Second: These laws were originally intended to prevent corruption in Washington following Watergate. Less accountable campaign finance could easily lead to scandals in this matter.
Third: America was founded as a democracy, not an oligarchy. Linking free speech to the amount of money you have is what Citizens United and McCutcheon are essentially doing. If candidates showed up at a presidential debate and the moderator said “pay for every minute you speak” than people would be angry, but buying TV time for political ads is essentially doing the same thing.
I can and do agree that there’s too much money in campaigns. I can’t, however, agree with your laser focus on the “management” side of things, as if they’re somehow worse than the “labor” side, which does a lot more harm and uses much nastier techniques – like “enforced” voting for Democrats by their members and enforced campaign contributions.
SCOTUS actually ruled, in the 1988 descision Communication Workers of America v. Beck that union workers are not required to support political candidates. As for “enforced voting” ballots are secret. The president of the union (who is elected) can’t exactly hold a gun to a member’s head and force them to support a Democrat.