Skip to main content

In Wis., Feingold feels impact of court ruling
Washington Post
[Page 4 of 5]

[Justice] Kennedy said there were safeguards in place for worries about unfettered political activity by corporations and unions: Disclosure.

"The court has explained that disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech," he wrote.

And he said it was easier now than at the time McCain-Feingold was passed.

"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable," Kennedy continued, saying such "transparency" allows voters to evaluate the speech and the messenger.

But real life has revealed problems with that approach.

That's what Kennedy said to defend his Vote for 'Citizens United' --

I think he and his Voting Block, owe the American People, an apology ...

Or maybe, some actual Disclosure ???

[continuing with the WaPo article ...]

But real life has revealed problems with that approach.

Critics of the ruling said Kennedy and the majority did not address rulings by the FEC and IRS, which govern the myriad political groups and nonprofit organizations active in elections, that they need not always disclose their donors.

Fred Wertheimer, the longtime campaign finance watchdog who is now president of Democracy 21, estimates that groups will spend as much as $200 million during the midterm elections without disclosing the source of the money.

And after the ruling, with unanimous opposition from Republicans, including McCain, the Senate did not toughen disclosure requirements .

To McCain and Feingold, the court's actions on campaign finance reflect both naivete and judicial activism.


Even John McCain called the 'Citizen United' decision "Naive and Judicial Activism".

Hmmm?   Why wasn't this big news? ... Bueller?   Bueller?

Even the Wall Street Journal, is conceding the 'Citizen United' decision, may have helped to oust Russ Feingold ... (among many others) ...

One Man Feeling the Effects of ‘Citizens United’: Russ Feingold
WSJ - Law Blog -- Nov 2, 2010

Is the Roberts Court responsible for Russ Feingold’s troubles?

To a degree, yes, writes Barnes. According to the story, Johnson has invested more than $8 million of his money in the race, and although the two campaigns are competitive with each other financially, outside groups have spent nearly $3 million on Johnson’s behalf.

A WaPo analysis shows 92 percent of the outside spending has supported the Republican. The impact has been obvious: The Wesleyan Media Project said there have been more commercials about the Senate race in Wisconsin than in any state outside Nevada.

"I’ve always been a target in this stuff," Feingold said during a recent campaign stop. "And this year, I’m getting the full dose: over $2 million in these ads (criticizing him) that used to not be legal."

Nice, Untraceable Money, paying for Unfactual Ads, to Unelect Public Officials --

Representatives who fight for real People, instead of the Corporate variety.

But wait, Justice Kennedy, has another Happy Camper, in his Corporate Free Speech camp  -- who's willing to defend their selling of Democracy to the highest (unknown) Bidder:

In Wis., Feingold feels impact of court ruling
By Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer -- Nov 1, 2010
[Page 2 of 5]

Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired, made Citizens United the last great dissent of many he wrote in 35 years on the court.

"While American democracy is imperfect," Stevens wrote in his 90-page opinion, "few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, but colleague Antonin Scalia took up his pen to specifically answer Stevens.

"To exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy," he wrote. "We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate."


We should celebrate the addition of Unaccountable Corporate Speech, to the Public Debate ???

Woo Hoo!  Let's have a Party.  Maybe Christine O'Donnell still has a that Convention Hall rented out?    (it wasn't her Money, afterall.)

Well I wonder if Citizen Patriot, Russ Feingold feels 'like celebrating' -- after being painted as "Job Outsourcer," by all that Citizens United outside money?  (Because Russ voted for the Stimulus Bill.)

Millions, to fund a False Message.  A few thousand times ...

AND Not a signature to be found in the bunch ... to take the blame   (or the credit ?)

In Wis., Feingold feels impact of court ruling
By Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer -- Nov 1, 2010
[Page 1 of 5]

It's not surprising, Feingold told a small group of supporters recently on the windswept campus of the University of Wisconsin at River Falls, that outside groups are gunning for him. He pointed to a recent piece in Washingtonian magazine that divided the Senate into categories.

"I wasn't fourth, third, second: I was the number one enemy of Washington lobbyists," he said, adding, "A Senate seat can't be bought; it has to be earned. We will never let the special interests drown out the voices of the people."

[...] outside groups have spent nearly $3 million on [Ron] Johnson's behalf.

And Ron Johnson WON bought Russ Feingold's Senate seat.

Woo hoo, let's party!

Corporate Speech sure has 'added' to our "Public Debate" -- Hasn't it !?

Those Roberts Supremes, are SO Wise --


Those Roberts Supremes, are SO Active --  yes indeed!

Despite their confirmation promises to the contrary, to let historical precedent stand --

And NOT to Legislate from the Bench.

Except for when it comes to Corporate Legislating ... it seems John Roberts, had his "fingers crossed" during his Senate Confirmation.

Darn it!  No take backs, ya all!

Originally posted to Digging up those Facts ... for over 8 years. on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 07:59 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  the Stooges for the Roberts Court (4+ / 0-)

      Challenges to Campaign Finance and Disclosure Laws Multiply After Citizens United Ruling from Roberts Court
      May 21, 2010 by J. Gerald Hebert and Tara Malloy

      A great number of the challenges in recent years have been filed by two well funded organizations that reveal little to nothing about their sources of their funding: The James Madison Center for Free Speech and the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP).

      The Madison Center is headed up by James Bopp, Jr., an RNC Committeeman and the attorney who launched the initial Citizens United challenge to the corporate expenditure restrictions.  Mr. Bopp and the Center have been involved in a number of high profile challenges to campaign finance and disclosure laws including, Citizens United, Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, RNC v. FEC, and Doe v. Reed.  

      Until the Citizens United decision, the litigation offensive undertaken by these groups, political parties, and others, to some extent, remained under the radar.  This was because the cases were framed as narrow, seemingly technical legal challenges, and further, because the Roberts Court acted incrementally in undermining campaign finance laws in its first four years.

      These groups pursued this litigation strategy for the simple reason that they were often challenging longstanding campaign finance laws that had already been upheld and declared constitutional.  Until Citizen United, anti-reform groups would not challenge the general constitutionality of a campaign finance law "on its face," but instead would frame their cases as narrow challenges to the law "as applied" to specific situations.

      These kind of "as applied" challenges allowed the Roberts Court to significantly erode existing precedent without having to reverse such precedent explicitly.

      Smoke in mirrors, folks.

      Nothing has changed here --

      except your Democracy,

      and the meaning of Free Speech --

      It's "Free", if you can afford it.

      Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

      by jamess on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:50:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and it's "free" ONLY if (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        you are a major corporation or foreign government/national!

        america wasn't defeated by foreign powers, it was purchased!  (with the help of *sshole bush!)

        MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

        by edrie on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 09:26:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't care if they don't disclose their donors (0+ / 0-)

    If your opponents don't disclose their donors, you go out there and you say their donors are pedophiles and terrorists.  End of story.

    The most impressive thing about man [...] is the fact that he has invented the concept of that which does not exist--Glenn Gould

    by Rich in PA on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:10:20 PM PST

    •  Sorry (11+ / 0-)

      I do care if they Disclose.

      My donations to Political Campaigns are Public Record.

      We should have no less for Millionaires and Billionaire --

      be they Corporations or not.

      more mudslinging is not an answer.

      Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

      by jamess on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:15:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you don't want your donations to be public... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...then you should find a liberal front organization to launder your donation anonymously like the plutocrats do for theirs.  There's no point lamenting the new state of affairs, because it's not going anywhere unless and until progressives take full control of the government, and that's going to have to happen with the existing rules of the game.  

        The most impressive thing about man [...] is the fact that he has invented the concept of that which does not exist--Glenn Gould

        by Rich in PA on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:18:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Someone needs to suit against the FEC (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RiaD, blueoasis, poligirl, peachcreek

          I nominate Alan Grayson --

          he can afford the fight,

          he'd probably win too.

          Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

          by jamess on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:22:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  jamess - what would be the basis (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JR, jamess

            for the lawsuit against the FEC? What would the facts be and how would it change the courts view? The fact that the independent groups overwhelmingly backed gopers isn't the basis for a winning lawsuit.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:51:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the basis (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NonnyO, poligirl, peachcreek

              for one Kennedy's statements

              that disclosure and transparency would

              allow voters to evaluate the speech and the messenger.

              that clearly didn't happen.

              Voters did NOT know who the Messenger was --

              so how can we evaluate, the credibility of a False Ad?

              Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

              by jamess on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:55:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  these guys (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NonnyO, poligirl, peachcreek

                The James Madison Center for Free Speech and the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP)

                don't seem to have any problems,
                bringing suits against the FEC.

                Corporations are NOT People.

                And Money is NOT Speech --

                not even "the Geico stack of money" --

                never heard him say much.

                Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

                by jamess on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:59:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Disclosure is a congressional issue (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                This is an area where Congress can legislate, but is not required to. Disclosure is not something the FEC can require without support of a federal statute passed by Congress.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 10:05:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Bill Moyers tackles the topic ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl, peachcreek

              Lawmakers, attorneys and legal experts have been scrambling to shape responses to the ruling at both state and federal levels of government. Some are trying to address the ruling with narrow legislative fixes while other groups are hoping to use the general opposition to the ruling to pass sweeping reforms.


              Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

              by jamess on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 09:04:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've linked to this a few times... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I think it's important. If you've seen it before, I apologize, but take a look at Joshua Holland's interview of Thom Hartmann on the Citizen's United vs FEC case here:


                In this case, evidence is presented of an intentional misinterpretation in historical legal recording that was then perpetuated down the line to textbooks and then to the Citizen's United decision.

                I'd appreciate any insight and discussion from the legally educated in attendance...

          •  That's CONGRESS'S job. (0+ / 0-)

            Congress fell down on the job.  Suing the FEC won't solve the problem.  The Court suggested a way that Congress could constitutionally fill the void that the Court created.  Congress didn't.

            "Speaking for me only." -Armando

            by JR on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 10:14:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Disclose Act met with Gridlock (0+ / 0-)

              mostly likely any additional congressional remedy will as well.

              If the game is rigged in your favor (GOP)

              what incentive is there for them to change it?

              given their top priorities and all.

              Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

              by jamess on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 05:37:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's irrelevant to a lawsuit. (0+ / 0-)

                The right you're suing to vindicate, according to the Supreme Court, doesn't exist under the current Constitution.  So we need to enact a statute to establish it.  The remedy you'd be asking for is extraordinary.  And the courts wouldn't feel authorized, absent a statute or amendment, to issue such a remedy.

                The first question the courts will ask is: Is this something we can settle in a court, or does it need to be settled in Congress?  And they'll say it's Congress's job either to fix the problem within the current system or to change the system so the problem can be fixed.  But the court can't, and won't, do it alone.


                "Speaking for me only." -Armando

                by JR on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 12:25:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  It would be tough to justify using Republican (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      tactics and show how we're actually different through example, though.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:42:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmm, I wonder if things will change in 2012. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiaD, JeffW, jamess, peachcreek

    Probably not.  Time goes by pretty quickly and the next election season will be here before we know it.  And the approach of the corporations relative to the Citizens United ruling will be new and improved, and the elections will cost billions.  Billions.  Billions used to be such a large amount.  Now we have trillions.  There could never be a trillion dollar election season though.  That's impossible.

    S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:17:03 PM PST

  •  I hate to say this, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO, jamess, BigAlinWashSt

    but the Roberts court is just winding up and getting started.  That asshole has his sights set on a lot more than elections.  And the f-er is young.

    This comment was brought to you by Goldman-Sachs: Our clients' interests always come first.

    by Kingsmeg on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:50:16 PM PST

    •  Check my new comment on the Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kingsmeg, NonnyO, poligirl

      there's some serious erosion,
      going on here

      under the guise of "technicalities" ...

      Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

      by jamess on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:52:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  roberts is disgusting. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kingsmeg, jamess, peachcreek

      scalia is disgusting.
      alito is disgusting.
      thomas is disgusting.

      kennedy NOW is disgusting.

      their court will go down in history as so much worse than any prior court - and i hope "history" starts writing in their lifetimes so that they can see how their "legacy" is viewed in this nation.

      one more reason to loathe bush, cheney, nader - the u.s.s.c. dismantling of impartial judicial decisions.

      in 100 years, the nation can point to it's decline and destruction to reagan, bolting forward to bushco and the selection of this court.

      the saddest part is watching it all happen and being unable to stop it.

      MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

      by edrie on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 09:25:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Worse than the Taney Court? (0+ / 0-)

        I was interning at two election law nonprofits this year, and think this was a truly awful decision, but it's nowhere near Dred Scott.

        Bad enough that it can be compared to Lochner

        "Speaking for me only." -Armando

        by JR on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 10:23:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  just wait - they are getting there... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kingsmeg, jamess

          the damage roberts and minions will do is just beginning.

          we are in very very deep doo right now - and will be for decades to come.  that was why creepbush appointed such young justices - to color the decisions for decades  - same with his other judicial appointments.

          with bush, we lost the judiciary for generations to come - how laws are impacted won't shake out for a very very long time.

          MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

          by edrie on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 11:30:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  hi edrie (0+ / 0-)

            good to see you riled up again.

            thx for the support!

            Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

            by jamess on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 06:04:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  hi jamess... never came down from (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              the riled up - just had to take a bit of a walkie from here cuz the claws were distended and wouldn't retract - impedes the HECK out of typing!  8^)

              am still only taking this place 5 minutes at a time - glad to share a minute with you...

              MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

              by edrie on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 12:17:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  CU operating as intended. Or did you think the s (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ame SCOTUS majority* that screwed the country with Bush v. Gore - the 1st a SupremeCourt legal opinion explicitly said it was not precedent, i.e. that it was not law - actually meant all the nice sounding b/s?  Did you really think they are stupid that they believed the facile justifications?

    (*Actually worse, given who replaced whom, but on other issues, tho I'm not sure O'Connor would have voted any different.  Tho, I am sure Rhenquist would have dug himself out of the grave to vote for the majority position, if he could. :) )

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site