TPM LiveWire

Reformer: Campaign-Finance Decision Is 'Disaster For American People And Dark Day For The Court'

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Fred Wertheimer, perhaps Washington's leading campaign-finance reform advocate and one of the architects of the modern campaign-finance system, has called this morning's Supreme Court decision "radical and destructive."

Here's the key section of a statement from Wertheimer:






























Today's Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case is a disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court.

The decision will unleash unprecedented amounts of corporate "influence-seeking" money on our elections and create unprecedented opportunities for corporate "influence-buying" corruption.

Today's decision is the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in Supreme Court history. In order to reach the decision, five justices abandoned longstanding judicial principles, judicial precedents and judicial restraint.

With the Citizens United opinion, Chief Justice Roberts has abandoned the illusory public commitments he made to "judicial modesty" and "respect for precedent" to cast the deciding vote for a radical decision that profoundly undermines our democracy.

In a stark choice between the right of American citizens to a government free from "influence-buying" corruption and the economic and political interests of American corporations, five Supreme Court Justices today came down in favor of American corporations.

With a stroke of the pen, five Justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy.

Join the Conversation!

9 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 21, 2010 11:32 AM   

I was hoping this would be the article that told me what was actually going on, but I guessed wrong. It hasn't been, I've got to say, a century of consistent progress in 'preventing corporate corruption of our democracy.'

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 21, 2010 11:35 AM   

This candidate brought to you by Shell.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 21, 2010 12:42 PM    in reply to For Want of a Nail

I can't remember who first proposed this but ... It's time all politicians wear NASCAR jackets with their corporate sponsors' logos on them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 21, 2010 12:45 PM    in reply to tiowally

That's the picture that automatically appeared in my head at least.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

PAB

user-pic

January 21, 2010 11:49 AM   

The powers that be started building the coffin for American democracy on November 22, 1963. This is the final nail in the box. Welcome to feudalism, fellow peons!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 21, 2010 12:33 PM   

Wow, this week gets worse by the day. Our country really is in for some dark times ...where corporations truly rule everything. They already completely own the Republican Party- now, they own EVERYONE.

So sad. So very sad.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 21, 2010 12:35 PM   

Well, Chief Justice Roberts just confirmed that he's the hyper-activist judge most folks thought he would be. He just lied about it when he testified under oath to get confirmed. This ruling will rank right up there with the Dred Scott decision in terms of its impact on the American polity.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 21, 2010 12:54 PM    in reply to BohemianBill

Comparing this to Dred Scott is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on this yet. Unless of course you are really stupid enough to believe that allowing black people to be treated as property is as bad as allowing corporations to spend money on political ads. I guess the Plessy V. Ferguson comparisons and the comparisons of Roberts to Taney can't be far behind, given the mind-bendingly stupid comments I have seen so far.

As for judicial activism, there is a boatload of prior Supreme Court precedent supporting this decision. But hey, let's not worry about the facts, because neither you or any of the other commenters seem to be worried about them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on