Citizens United v. FEC

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

How exactly are they going to overpower your vote?

Well, look at Scott Brown's campaign finances, the guy from Mass who was just elected Senator. There's a chart in this article.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/15/wallst-scott-brown/

Less than half his money came from people who want to elect him, those "grass-roots" people who supported his "I drive a truck" campaign and gave him money to help get elected.

But when he came out and said he wouldn't support the tax on bonuses for the banks that put our country into recession and economic freefall (that borrowed money but still are giving record bonuses), Wall Street came out in force to support his election.

Well, of course! He's voting against taxpayers and our deficit reduction, and in favor of banks that took our bailout money not having to be responsible for putting our country into the financial toilet

But that was certainly fair under campaign law as of last Tuesday. Corporations had the first amendment right to free speech, to support financially and vocally any candidate they want to. And they did.

But there was a limit to what Corps could do: how much they could give, and they had a responsibility to have campaign PAC's, to account for what money went there.

That left the "people" with contributing almost half his campaign finances.

For example, see who one of the "Tea Party" organizations (FreedomWorks) - really is. It's not a group of citizens, it's a Wall Street bank lobbying organization.

But, we get to know that money from "FreedomWorks" is corporate money, due to disclosure requirements.

– The Wall Street front group FreedomWorks is mobilizing get out the vote efforts for Brown this weekend. FreedomWorks organized the very first tea party protests, and has used its extensive staff and resources to mobilize rallies and advocacy campaigns on behalf of corporate interests. Dick Armey, who as a corporate lobbyist represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouit, is the leader of FreedomWorks. FreedomWorks is also funded and chaired by Steve Forbes and Frank Sands of Sands Capital Management.

The Wall Street front group Club for Growth is strongly “boosting” Brown and is expected to run ads in support for him. According to recent disclosures, the Club for Growth is funded by a $1.4 million dollar donation from investor Stephen Jacksons of Stephens Groups Inc, a $1.4 million dollar donation from broker Richard Gilder, and $210,000-$630,000 donations from at least 10 other investors and financial industry professionals.

So half Brown's money came from people who will vote for him, the other half is from Wall Street wanting to elect candidates that serve their special interests.

What the Supreme Court ruling has done is just eliminated limits on what those corporations can contribute, and the accountability.

Thus, any corporation (who has far more money than individual investors -see the individuals in the "Club for Growth" above) can literally just squash a candidate.

First, this renders all the little $5 and $50 contributions people make useless - it's like donating pennies now.

Second, it renders groups like "Club for Growth", above, useless, as even their donations are like donating pennies now.

The largest, richest corporations can literally give a billion dollars to squash or support a candidate now.

It renders you and I pretty useless, especially regarding candidate support in primaries.

Oh, yeah, we still are the ones that technically vote - but corporate money now has unlimited ability to determine what we see and hear about a candidate, what ads we see, and pretty much who will get on the primary ballot (who we will even hear about, who will be able to afford to get on the ballot)

So a movement of "average citizens" wanted to vote for Scott Brown, but any opposing corporation could have just squashed all those TV ads about him and his truck, by running three times the ad numbers showing his Playgirl centerfold.

Of course, then the Wall Street interests - or foreign corporations - could have paid for a billion in pro- Brown ads - but the point is, that you and I voters, the groundswell of people who got interested in this candidate and supported him - no longer matter at all.

The overwhelming number of people in this country say they are not happy with the way the country is going, and they are not happy with Wall Street, the banks, and their lack of responsibility for putting our country (and others) in a deep recession, the mortage and derivative crisis, etc.

And these same "anti-Wall Street" people who are so unhappy with the recession, where our country is financially, think the above Supreme Court decision giving corporations virtually unlimited involvement in American elections is a good thing for the average voter?