Federal Appeals Court Deals Potential Death Blow To Democracy

Supreme Court Could Finish The Job

September 20, 2009  

An Appeals Court struck down a campaign finance reform law on Friday that was designed to keep organizations and corporations from spending unlimited amounts of money that would decide the outcome of an election. This ruling comes as a result of Citizens Group’s efforts to abandon the law that has thus far prevented them from releasing an embarrassing move about Hillary Clinton called “Hillary: The Movie”. But that obstacle has now been removed; therefore the movie will most likely be released very soon. (You can research who Citizens Group is, but in the end you will find they are an anti-Democrat organization that is heavily financed by extremist right wingers and many of their powerful personal and corporate friends)

As for the movie, it’s of no consequence to me one way or the other. The Clintons are the main architects of their own legacy (although many of those behind the movie, with the help of some wealthy sworn enemies of the Clintons, were successful in a smear campaign against the Clintons during the 1990’s). But what is of dire concern to me is that this decision will make democracy very one-sided, whereas corporate America, along with their mega-wealthy friends, will be making much larger political decisions for our country than they make today.

You most likely remember Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; the group that not only defeated John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential campaign by publishing and promoting the biggest lies ever told about a Presidential candidate (up until that time), but also destroyed a page of democracy along with it. Another organization, MoveOn.org, is designed to do the same, except they favor the Democrats. Both sides will profit handsomely with these rulings, but the Republicans have the bulk of corporate America behind them.

Ordinary, everyday, common citizens have little influence on the way political campaigns are waged. And up until now, the very wealthy and corporations were limited on how much they could spend to convince us commoners who we should vote for when we went to the polls. To a very large degree, they have already been very successful in that objective. But without this law, a much larger crack has appeared in the dam. And if the Supreme Court follows suit, the dam will burst (see below).

The three-judge panel that made the ruling Friday are all Republicans. One, Karen LeCraft Henderson, was appointed by George H.W. Bush to the Appeals Court in 1990, replacing Kenneth Starr of the “let persecute the Clintons” fame. The other two was appointed by his son, George W. Bush. He appointed Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2003 after he served as Bush’s Senior Associate Counsel and Associate Counsel to the President, then later as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Janice Rogers Brown was also appointed in 2003, but it was two years before she joined the court due to a long confirmation process.

This isn’t the first time the Constitution has been used against itself and its original intention (in this case, the first amendment protecting free speech); and most likely this won’t be the last. But be warned, eventually there will be ‘a last time’; when the Constitution is totally abandoned in favor of a dictatorship by one of the major political parties. There will be a few more abuses before that happens, but this is probably the largest chuck ever taken in one chew.

Irving Kristol passed away this week at the age of 89 (that’s him shaking hands with George W. Bush). Although Kristol often made fun of it, he was known as the godfather of neo-conservatism. While the actual true definition of this term is often debated, it’s always referred to the political extremist on the far right. And although you may not have realized it, we have been living under that thought process since the 1980’s, starting with President Ronald Reagan. Consequently, we could draw a conclusion that this Appeals Court gave Kristol a fond farewell with their decision. With that thought in mind, I’m sure William “Bill” Kristol, Irving Kristol’s son, also a believer in neo-conservatism, is quite proud of the ruling.

The Supreme Court’s Contribution

The aforementioned could very well be the next to last death blow for democracy. A week ago the Supreme Court heard arguments in another case that, if struck down, would remove all restrictions on corporate support of their candidate of choice, some of which have been in place since 1907. Doing so would deliver the final death blow to democracy. (The campaign finance reform law that was holding back the Hillary movie was the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, which applies only to broadcast, satellite or cable transmissions, but does not apply to printed material and the Internet.)

The following are several excerpts from articles relative to both cases. Read them very, very carefully.

“We’re not dealing with campaign finance laws. We’re dealing with the essence of power in America.”

“The court ruled in 1990 that corporations, because of their ‘immense aggregations of wealth,’ possessed a unique ability to drown out the voices of individuals in the nation’s political conversation. That precedent was reinforced in 2003 when the court upheld the federal campaign finance law that limits the electoral influence of corporations, unions and special interest groups.”

“It would unleash corporations to use their massive wealth to overwhelm the federal system, with disastrous consequences for the country.”

“If Republicans were wondering how their 2012 presidential candidate is going to compete against President Obama’s $600 million fundraising juggernaut, the Supreme Court seems poised to provide an answer: unlimited corporate spending supporting the Republican candidate, or attacking Obama.”

“Even the word ‘radical’ does not capture the extent to which the justices could turn our political system upside down. Will it use a case originally brought on a narrow issue to bring our politics back to the corruption of the Gilded Age [link provided]? The most important will be the argument before the Supreme Court about a case that, if decided wrongly, could surrender control of our democracy to corporate interests [bold added].” 

“Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, has the ace in his hand. He and Justice Samuel Alito, also appointed by George W. Bush, have voted for every challenge to campaign finance laws since joining the court.

“Will justices abandon precedents? Standing by their previous decisions?”

Roberts’ comments at his confirmation hearings in 2005:

“I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough — and the court has emphasized this on several occasions — it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn’t answer the question, it just poses the question. And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments.” [And paraphrasing Alexander Hamilton as saying in Federalist 78, Roberts said] “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents.”

One writer, in reference to the immediately above comments, puts it this way about Roberts’ upcoming decision.

“If he uses his own standards, it is impossible to see how he can justify the use of ‘arbitrary discretion’ to discard a well-established system whose construction began with the Tillman Act of 1907”.

I recall back in the early 1970’s when I watched Joan Baez on the Johnny Carson show. She stood on stage ranting and raving against our government and the Constitution. My initial thought was that she was advocating the destruction of the very document that allowed her to stand on a public stage and say what she was saying. My next thought was that she was abusing the hell out of the Constitution for her own selfish reasons. And that is exactly what we are seeing today; people abusing the hell out of the Constitution for their own selfish objectives.

The changes in some of these laws will not affect the candidates themselves. It only affects outside interest, which is where the real problem lies. Which side spends the most money will likely come out the winner.

How Much To Spend?

“Speed cost money; how fast do you want to go?” — painted on the back of a race car hauler I saw just yesterday. If we think the rights campaign to defeat health care reform was a sight to behold, as the old saying goes, ‘you ain’t seen nothing yet’! Although their success was probably much better than originally anticipated, it isn’t everything they wanted. But that’s about to change. Knowing the only thing standing between them and the kind of victory’s they are looking for is the amount of money they want to spend, they won’t quit until they own not only the entire country, but every person in it.

So what’s going to happen? Obviously no one can predict the future. But we have to be painfully aware that all five lawyers referred to here are Republicans — some are on the very far right. We’ve already politicized science during the latter Bush years; are we going to finish politicizing the Supreme Court? If so, then Wall Street and the mega-wealthy will have complete & total control over our government, and commoners will be left to feel the pain of their whips. Let’s just hope those of us who are so blinded by partisan politics will open our eyes soon and realize that all of us are in the same boat and will be forced to join the ranks of the sheep being led to the slaughter house if one party is allowed to become our permanent dictator.