When Roberts and his merry band of judges, were deciding the fate of America in the Citizens United v. FEC case,
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a critical film about Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.
I felt as though it would never come to pass; Corporations to be treated as though they were people, how could this be? Every media outlet that I had viewed said it was very likely to be a 5 to 4 decision in favor of Corporations. NO WAY! I still refused to believe that the 5 accomplished Supreme Court judges could ever vote against The People even with bearing in mind, that they were of the "Conservative Persuasion".
(In my opinion, a system of beliefs, that advocate, Flesh and Blood People insignificant when making laws).
Live and learn, that’s what happened to me on January 21, 2010 because it DID COME TO PASS and now we are dangerously close to an election that could be decided by Corporations, even ones overseas like BP.
Today, after receiving this email, I thought I would try to do a small part in undoing such an ignorant law, by blogging it around. My efforts will have seemed worth it even if only one person takes action to tell these 5 Roberts' judges that they were in the wrong and "We The People" must make it right by forcing a constitutional amendment.
Please read more about it HERE. And while you’re at it visit MOVE TO AMEND.
Thank you,thinkingblue
Two important reads:
1.Money Grubbers - The Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform.
2. Does The Roberts Court Favor Corporations Over Ordinary Citizens?
Dear People For Supporter,
An important new poll commissioned by People For the American Way shows that Americans of every political stripe resoundingly reject the Roberts Court's dangerous decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which opened the floodgates of unlimited corporate cash in our elections.
We should have a government of, by and for the people. The polling results show increasing concern among Americans that, in part because of the Court's decision, which equates corporations with people, we are becoming a government of, by and for the corporations. The poll also shows broad awareness that when corporations spend unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of elections, it infringes on the rights of the rest of us by drowning out the voices of the average citizen.
The Court's decision in Citizens United was so disastrous that voters overwhelmingly support a constitutional amendment to correct it.
Three-quarters of voters said that they support a constitutional amendment to limit the amount that corporations can spend in elections. A similar majority are more inclined to support a candidate who has spoken out in favor of an amendment. This support cuts across party and ideology, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in support of the measure.
Leading up to Election Day, People For the American Way, along with Public Citizen and other allies, will be asking congressional candidates to pledge to support a constitutional amendment, and sharing that information with voters.
Here are some of the polling specifics:
* 85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today while 93% say that average citizens have too little influence.
* 95% agree that "Corporations spend money on politics mainly to buy influence in government and elect people who are favorable to their financial interests." (74% strongly agree)
* 85% disagree that "Corporations should be able to spend as much as they want to influence the outcome of elections because the Constitution protects freedom of speech." (63% strongly disagree)
* 93% agree that "There should be clear limits on how much money corporations can spend to influence the outcome of an election." (74% strongly agree)
* 77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount U.S. corporations can spend to influence elections.
* 74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a constitutional amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.
You can read more about the poll here. (PDF)
Thank you for your continued support of PFAW's campaign to restore Government By the People.
-- Ben Betz, Online Communications Manager