If you believe the Repub and Dem Parties are tools of corporatist interests now, read the nightmare scenario coming to us this fall courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court right wing Gang of Five. E.J. Dionne writes about this in a column published today aptly headlined "Sotomayor hearings are about nation's future, not hers." Dionne calls out the breathtaking step the Supreme Court conservatives took this spring in the "Citizens United" case. Yes, the one where wingnuts attack Hillary Clinton in a movie, and the original issue was whether the movie constituted a political ad subject to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. It would be bad enough if the Court found the movie exempt from those restrictions.
But the Court decided to decide an issue not even briefed up to this point, and will hear argument next fall on whether corporations should be allowed to spend money to elect or defeat particular candidates. If the Court decides yes, this is a political game changer. Corporate money would likely determine not only who wins political races, but also who even runs.
More on Dionne's frightening analysis below the fold.
Dionne begins his column saying
This week's hearings on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court represent the opening skirmish in a long-term struggle to challenge the escalating activism of an increasingly conservative judiciary...The argument over the political and philosophical direction of the judiciary that began 40 years ago has reached a critical moment. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, conservatives have finally established a majority on the court that is beginning to work its will.
The most important portion of Dionne's analysis is here
If you wonder what judicial activism looks like, consider one of the court's final moves in its spring term.
The justices had before them a case that could have been disposed of on narrow grounds, involving the group Citizens United. It had asked to be exempt from the restrictions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law for a movie critical of Hillary Clinton that it produced during the presidential campaign. Citizens United says it should not have to disclose who paid for the film.
Rather than decide the case before it, the court engaged in a remarkable exercise of judicial overreach. It postponed its decision, called for new briefs and scheduled a hearing this September on the broader question of whether corporations should be allowed to spend money to elect or defeat particular candidates.
Dionne points out how sweeping the effect would be if corporations are allowed to contribute directly to politicians' campaigns
It is truly frightening that a conservative Supreme Court is seriously considering overturning a century-old tradition at the very moment when the financial crisis has brought home the terrible effects of excessive corporate influence on politics.
In the deregulatory wave of the 1980s and '90s, Congress was clearly too solicitous to the demands of finance. Why take a step now that would give corporations even more opportunity to buy influence? With the political winds shifting, do conservatives on the court see an opportunity to fight the trends against their side by altering the very rules of the electoral game?
Be scared, be very scared, of what's coming.