Chuckie Schumer and Chris Van Hollen spew.
The Supreme Court’s ruling striking down limits on corporate and union spending in elections is “un-American,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Thursday.
Additionally, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a top Senate Democrat who formerly ran their campaign committee, said he would hold hearings on the decision in the coming weeks.
“I think it’s an un-American decision,” Van Hollen said at a press conference along side Schumer on Thursday. “I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today.”
“Un-American”. Give me a fucking break. Politicians are notorious for prostituting themselves to special interest groups and corporations, so this charade is laughable.
Notice every time a decision thwarts the Dems crackdown on free speech, they go into a tailspin of rage.
The majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare, so Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid threaten to go over the heads of the electorate. Chuckie and company don’t like the Supreme Court extention of free speech rights to corporations, so they threaten to “investigate”. This law lets stand the rules on corporate and union disclosure. They can give what they want, but the amount will be matter of public record. Which means Schumer’s cash cows will be that much more obvious.
A victory for Free Speech.
Hat Tip to Ace of Spades
In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that free-speech rights permit groups like corporations and labor unions to directly spend on political campaigns, prompting the White House to pledge “forceful” action to undercut the decision.
In a written statement, President Obama said the high court had “given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.” He called it a “major victory” for Wall Street, health insurance companies and other interests which would diminish the influence of Americans who give small donations.
Ya mean like the stampede of SEIU and AARP special interest lobbyists who visit the White House on a regular basis? The same unions and special interests who poured millions into Obama’s 2008 campaign?
Obama pledged to “work immediately” with Congress to develop a “forceful response.”
Translation: He’s going to see how fast he can squelch this latest blow to government control over who gets to spend what, on which candidate.
Siding with filmmakers of “Hillary: The Movie,” who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
……The case involves the film by conservative group Citizens United, which criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign.
Citizens United planned to air ads promoting its distribution through cable television video-on-demand services. The FEC said the film amounted to a campaign ad and that Citizens United, an incorporated entity that takes corporate money, could only use limited, disclosed contributions from individuals to promote and broadcast it.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and other groups sided with Citizens United in calling a loosening of restrictions.
“This is a victory for Citizens United, but even more so for the First Amendment rights of all Americans,” said Citizens United President David Bossie. “The fault line on this issue does not split liberals and conservatives or Republicans and Democrats. Instead, it pits entrenched establishment politicians against the very people whom they are elected to serve.”
The Supreme Court’s decision upholds political speech—which means whether the donor is a ‘corporation’ or an individual, the government cannot restrict 1st Amendment rights.
Which, of course, has the leftwing doing the jitterbug on the ceiling.
Keith “moonbat” Olbermann thinks Free Speech is doomed.
He rants that this is:
“……a decision that might actually have more dire implications than “Dred Scott v Sandford,”…because of the alchemy of its 19th Century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people, any restrictions on how these corporate-beings spend their money on political advertising, are unconstitutional.
In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886. In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections.
None. They can spend all the money they want. And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service.
Uh, last I checked, corporations were comprised of persons. And they’ve been supporting political candidates since politics was invented, MSNBC—a GE owned subsidiary—included.
Wanna peek at all the special interest money that goes to candidates and incumbents? Here’s the link:
Olberman’s take is that a ‘corporation’ shouldn’t have the same free speech rights as its employees; which flies in the face of the 1st Amendment.
What really bothers the leftwingnuts is that conservative-leaning corporations will have the same opportunity to ‘spend all the money they want’, just like the leftwing corporation that Olbermann works for.
The New York Times pitched a hissy fit, too.
Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.
As a result of Thursday’s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.
‘Strikes at the heart of democracy’??? What angst. What melodrama. What bullshit. This is coming from a leftwing rag that thinks nothing of blazing national secrets in its headlines.
Members of Congress are already sustained by wealthy special interests. Washington lobbyists may as well have their own desk inside each politician’s office. The whole tantrum being thrown by the Left is disingenuous crap.
More on the Court’s decision here: