LibriumArcana.Games

The US supreme court has delivered a fresh blow to the Democrats, already reeling from their stunning defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race, by opening the floodgates to huge corporate funding of campaigns for or against presidential and congressional candidates.

In a decision that could have a profound impact on future elections, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that barred businesses from paying for campaign adverts. The decision in what is known as the Citizens United case will allow big businesses – such those selling arms, drugs or insurance companies – that already wield influence through lobby groups to openly back favoured candidates who support their interests.

The court also struck down part of a separate campaign finance bill that barred companies and trade unions from publishing political adverts in the closing days of election campaigns.

The ruling was swiftly condemned by liberal pressure groups such as the People for the American Way, which described it as "putting corporate power above individual rights".

"It is a long established principle that the government can act in the interest of democracy to prevent corporations from pouring in billions of dollars to unduly influence elections," the group said. "Given conservative rhetoric about deference to the democratically elected branches, today's ruling is stunning".

Republicans are expected to be the principal beneficiaries of the ruling, a further blow to some Democratic party candidates in November's midterm elections who are already feeling exposed after the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, won an upset victory in Massachusetts, taking the seat left vacant by the death of Democratic icon Edward (Ted) Kennedy.

Nineteen of the Democrats' remaining 59 seats in the Senate are up for re-election in November. Several incumbents told Politico that all of them are now considered vulnerable.

"Every state is now in play," said Barbara Boxer, who is facing a serious challenge for her California seat from a wealthy Republican, Carly Fiorina.

Other Democratic Senators are urging the administration to drop unpopular legislation, such as the cap-and-trade bill to control greenhouse gases, until the economy has recovered and voters are less concerned about government expenditure and the impact of such laws on business.

Senator Ben Cardin said: "People in our states want us to deal with the economy, with jobs. All of us are going to be subject to that type of anger."

Separately, the House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi has admitted that Obama's healthcare reform bill is unlikely to have enough support in the House to pass without changes.

"I don't see the votes for it," Pelosi told reporters. She said Democratic congressional leaders were "not in a big rush" to determine their next move on healthcare but remained determined to pass a bill this year.

On Capitol Hill, Scott Brown was already being spoken of as a potential Republican presidential candidate, though he is also being eyed warily by rightwing colleagues concerned that he may prove too liberal. His support of abortion rights and his vote in favour of Massachusetts' own compulsory health care insurance, even though he campaigned against similar national policies, has some on the right watching him carefully.

He is being greeted among some Republicans as a welcome alternative to the party's more extreme elements. Brown ran a clever campaign that drew in independent voters and avoided party infighting.

The Republican leadership has sought to quieten the most vocally conservative wing of the party, which often drives away younger voters and independents, particularly outside of the south.

In a sign of the Republican party's difficulties in finding credible leadership, David Gergen, who served as Ronald Reagan's communications director, has suggested on CNN that Brown could make a presidential run alongside Sarah Palin.

SirNitram wrote:I once again support Grayson's ideal reform for this, The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act. The practical outcome would be a 500% excise tax on political contributions or political work done by a corporation. IE, spend a billion on the campaign in ways, pay 5 billion to Uncle Sam.

Pity the GOP will demand cloture votes for all of it. And thus require 60.(It's sad, but the rules literally require nothing more.)

The Cleric wrote:I'm ok with corporate advertising for politicians if we can eliminate lobbyists entirely.

frigidmagi wrote:I call them College Football rules. Under these rules a lobbyist or anyone who employs a lobbyist would be under the same rules that college football coaches and boosters are. Simply put, they can't give any gifts, loan any money, do any favors or even buy a Congresscritter lunch.

Combine this with a new divisions of the FBI whose job it would be to specific watch the Congress...

frigidmagi wrote:We're gonna need a Constitutional Amendment to overrule this.

frigidmagi wrote:We're gonna need a Constitutional Amendment to overrule this.

Rogue 9 wrote:Or a future Supreme Court.

Windswept wrote:Brought to you by AirBus.

CT wrote:Yes we will, and the chances of getting it passed are approximately -8%

CT Again wrote:Yep. Definitely going to try to post doc in europe and use that as a stepping stone for emigration.

frigidmagi wrote:We're gonna need a Constitutional Amendment to overrule this.

frigidmagi wrote:If a person won't fight for this, well what will they fight for that is worth a damn?

Was it a rough year. Hell Yes. It's been a rough decade. Pick yourself up and try again, how else do you expect to get anywhere.

There are a few Republics who will break ranks to support campaign finance reform so mitigating the damage by clever lawyering around the issue might be possible. As the ranks of both parties are chock full of lawyers, this might actually be an opportunity to use their powers for good instead of evil. It's certainly a tack worthy of investigation and one that actually has a decent chance of getting pushed through the political proces

frigidmagi wrote:
That will only get struck down by the Supreme Court again. When the Supreme Court said that the corporations could do this, that means any thing short of changing the Constitution is now an illegal means of limiting them. They're saying that the Corporations have Constitutional Right to do this.

And we both know the fine art of legal loopholing has ways of getting around decisions like this while technically staying in line with them. Why the fuck should we go for the measure least likely to pass first without even investigating if a procedure more likely to succeed will work?

While we're at it American needs a national elections department like Canada and Australia to cut down on shit like the voter intimidation and incorrect information that political operatives spew out.

frigidmagi wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Or a future Supreme Court.

When was the last time a Supreme Court overruled itself?