US Supreme court defends wealthy’s right to own government // Supreme Court says political influence isn’t corruption
POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ
Supreme Court says political influence isn’t corruption
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—By a five-to-four decision, the United States Supreme Court today defended the right of the wealthiest Americans to own the United States government. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts summarized the rationale behind the Court’s decision: “In recent years, this Court has done its level best to remove any barriers preventing the wealthiest in our nation from owning our government outright. And while the few barriers that remained were flimsy at best, it was high time that they be shredded as well.” Citing the United States Constitution, Justice Roberts wrote, “Our founding fathers created the most magnificent democracy in human history. Now, thanks to this decision, the dream of owning that democracy is a reality.” Justice Antonin Scalia also weighed in, telling reporters at the Court, “After all the pro-gay decisions we’ve been making around here lately, it was nice to finally have a win for the good guys.”
In the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finances this week, this was one of the central questions: Does the general influence and access that large political donors may have with elected officials amount to government corruption? A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court said “no.” A minority said “yes.” The majority said government may restrict campaign finances to prevent corruption or an appearance of corruption, but it said corruption is limited to a direct exchange of money for an official act.
The minority said that definition of corruption is too narrow and should be broadened to include political influence. In the 5-4 decision issued Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down a law that capped at $123,200 the total amount that an individual could contribute per two-year election cycle to candidates for federal office and federally registered party committees and political action committees. The Supreme Court ruled individuals can donate as much as they wish as long as they abide by legal limits on direct contributions to each individual candidate or committee.
The decision means an individual can contribute a total of up to $3.6 million this election cycle to candidates for the U.S. House and Senate and federally registered party committees. The $3.6 million represents the maximum legal donations to each candidate and committee.
The Supreme Court ruling comes four years after its Citizens United decision, which freed corporations, unions and others to raise and spend as much as they want on elections as long as they don’t coordinate with candidates. The court has held that campaign contributions are political speech and political association protected by the First Amendment and that government may restrict donations only to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption. And in the opinion issued Wednesday, the Supreme Court made it clear that when it is talking about corruption, it means a direct exchange of money for an official act.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:
“In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit political speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford.”
Roberts also wrote, “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects.” The chief justice wrote that were was a “substantial mismatch” between the government’s interest in preventing corruption and the cap on the total amount an individual could contribute to candidates and committees.
The cap, Roberts wrote, restricted how many candidates or committees an individual can support with maximum allowable contributions. “The Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse,” Roberts wrote. The Supreme Court case was brought by a conservative donor and the Republican National Committee.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion relied heavily on a narrow definition of corruption that excluded efforts by political donors to obtain influence or access to officials or political parties.
Let me start by quoting two great men and a crook that died the other day.
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson
When asked if his payments to politicians had worked, Charles Keating replied, "I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so."
When asked outside of Independence Hall if we have a republic or a monarchy, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."
When asked outside of Independence Hall if we have a republic or a monarchy, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Well, here we are, aren't we? Right at the point where we are about to find out whether we can keep it or not. The Supreme Court has decided that a small amount of people will get to control our entire political system. Which politician or political party can resist hundreds of millions of dollars put in at once? Maybe one person can resist, maybe one party can resist for a small period of time, but eventually they will succumb. In Congressional races, 95 percent of the time the person with more money wins. It doesn't matter if they are a Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. It doesn't matter what their ideas are or what their ideology is. It doesn't matter what they think at all. You have more money and you will win 19 out of 20 times.
Justice Anthony Kennedy destroyed our republic. We knew Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas were corporate robots. We knew they were going to say disingenuously that corporations or billionaires pouring in millions into our politicians' pockets wouldn't lead to corruption. What an unbelievable joke. But it turns out that Kennedy was the biggest joke of all. He claims that millions in campaign donations won't even result in the appearance of corruption. Can anyone with a shred of intelligence honestly believe that?
So, it was nice while it lasted. Democracy at the national level is dead now. We have replaced it with an open auction. This will not at some future date lead to a worst case scenario. We're already living in that scenario. You don't have to worry about the top 1 percent. Now, the 0.00024 percent of the country who donate over a $100,000 to politicians will rule us all. Because even the federal limit of $123,200 per election cycle has now been eliminated by the McCutcheon decision. They can now spend unlimited money "contributing" to our politicians. So, how do we escape this worst case scenario? Congress is corrupt and the Supreme Court is even worse. Luckily, there is one thing above them -- the constitution. Every generation of Americans has amended the constitution so that we may have a more perfect union. Except one. Us. We must get money out of politics. We must amend...
read more:
read more:
