Skip to main content

If a court makes a ruling in the backwoods and no one willing to talk, is it still a ruling?

Talking heads on television network news have proven that  coprorations who sign pay checks are also responsible for the Montana gag order. To find out what Network News will not tell you, read below the fold...

Main stream media (MSM) refuses to report on Montana's home run hit in the ninth ending with two outs and runners in scoring position. If you belong to the 99%, I take great pleasure in revealing the game ball we call Democracy that went bounding over the park fence.

The Montana Supreme Court upheld a ban on direct corporate spending in political campaigns, rejecting Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling on Friday December 30, the last working day of 2011.

In the case of Montana, or more accurately its voters, "clearly had a compelling interest to enact the challenged statute in 1912,” wrote Chief Justice Mike McGrath for the Court’s the majority opinion. At that time the State of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority, and the real social and political power was wielded by powerful corporate managers to further their own business interests.

The Montana court agreed that past political corruption gives Montana a compelling interest in regulating corporate spending. They also pointed out that corporations can form voluntary political action committees - subject to disclosure requirements - as a way to remain politically active.

To reverse the Montana Supreme Court, however, the justices would have to extract themselves from a quandary of their own making, noted professor Rick Hasen of the University of California-Irvine Law School on his popular Election Law Blog.

"If the Court were being honest in Citizens United," Hasen wrote, "it would have said something like: We don't care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption."
But by "dress[ing] up its value judgment ... as a factual statement," continued Hasen, the U.S. Supreme Court must now explain why the Montana Supreme Court was not correct to consider the factual record when it came to justifying corporate spending limits in campaign finance laws.

How the Citizens United majority will affect Montana's factual record remains hypothetical.

Yet, as with the Nationl Defense Authorization Act, the news falls on deaf ears, if you to listen to network television in America. All news channels talking heads primarily focused discussion on Iowa Caucus news, prefering to dance on lethal topics like abortion and dead issues as a Newt Gingrich presidential bid. Incredibly, what was left from discussion was the indefinate detention of U.S. citizens without trial or - as in this case - an unprecedented lower court ruling thrown like a log onto a fire at the beginning of election week.

As of Tuesday, January 3rd 2012, hits for 'Montana Supreme Court' in the last 7 days of news revealed only one reputable publication, The Raw Story, having bothered to cover the ruling. Other hits turned up bloggers on and a handful of assorted links. Virtually all hits carried an identical lead in, sadly indicating the same story was copied over with very little re-write.

This writer had discovered the Montana ruling through, a user-generated news website which permits anyone to submit any story or url, regardless of who the content belongs to. In this case, the submitter was FreakoutNation, who prompted 397 diggers to dig the story into the websites Top 10 News Story listings - inappropriately titled "The Bitch Slap Heard Around The World" - not to be confused as indecent or offensive. The action of the Montana court is quite back-handed by jurisdictional standards, and serves a volley to the partisan Supreme Court of the United States.

What was inappropriate was that the slap was hardly heard from around the world. In fact, the main stream media was absolutely mute on the ruling, almost as if Corporate Media decided to play possum until someone can call in damage control.

Is there damage control? Something pretty serious must happen, like an order to implement FEMA camps or maybe something along the lines of false flag bombing or Gulf contact in the Straight of Hormuz with Iran.

As the G.O.P. caucuses blow millions of dollars in negative character assassination campaigns while poisoning the minds of voters both local and nationwide, we are reminded once again of our brothers and sisters who have lost their homes, who are jobless, who have families to support. They are not in their current position because they are lazy or or unintelligent - they simply did not get the same equal opportunities the rest of us did. These people, whole families, whether couch-surfing or huddled en-mass in the bitter cold, are not going to benefit from the millions of dollars that are bursting from the coffers of the candidates. Iowa has a homeless shelter, a 99% movement and has groups of people who are not corporations and who are neither heard from nor represented in the Republican caucuses. The sight off the poor are not reflective of the image the Republican caucuses wish to show America on prime time television. After all, this show belongs to the Job-Killing Republican party, and as with the Rose Bowl Octopus on the January 1st, the huddled masses will go unseen here in Iowa tonight.

As red America drinks the Republican kool-aid, it's the bloggoshere wherein lie the true information heroes. Main stream news outlets suck in every dime of campaign money for the fair trade of 'air time', selling empty blocks of silence where spin doctor's practice the fine art of mind manipulation while employing demographic messages which contain false-truths.

In 2008, Barack Obama spent $750 million dollars to become President of the United States. Factoring in all possibilities of where money could possibly go, one can only surmise that nearly every penny of it went to political advertising, minus some cab fare. The 2008 Presidential election did not permit corporate spending because Citizens United vs. FEC of 2008 failed to affect those races.

But 2010 bore a whole new animal, when suddenly corporate spending on political ads no longer required disclosure. Personal campaign funds across the board were emptied for campaign advertising, but what made the year remarkable was the G.O.P.'s unusual comeback in Congress.

Just when dismal polls shadowed forecasts of any Republican seats to be gained, negative ad campaigning combined with a surge in media growth had resulted in heavy losses for the Democrats. Corporate money greatly favored the G.O.P. candidates in 2010 elections, where special interests found the more willing party. Consequently, the Boner-era Republican hard-liners grew from cash to stash for the ultra-conservatives, where all the way up to the end of the 112th Congress they rode their gifted horse into the ground.

Money injected into main stream news media keep the news corporations fat and healthy. Employees of any main stream news organizations receive benefit packages, salaries, paid holidays and 401k plans. These people, while still the 99%, are dis-associated with their brethren because of who they work for. While they may sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street movement, they are politically bound from participating in these movements.

In other words, if you fear for your job and for the income that it provides, because you fear for the loss of your home and food to eat, then you are compromised, my friend. Your fear governs the truth you believe and report.

Bloggers, on the other hand, are driven by a lack of truth. From the Reagan-era 80's to the infancy of computer networks throughout the early 90's, keeping in-the-know was fleeting, like an information dark age. Newspapers biased news that were affecting sensitive cultural issues, whose holdings included multi-national affiliations which swayed editorial boards to the point of inspiring authors to base fiction.

If corporations are people, as the U.S. Supreme court tells us they are, then are corporations not silencing the very people who work for them? Is this not an aspect of discrimination that the Robert's Supreme court has overlooked?

Bloggers are one rung below website news outlets and - because they can type more than 140 characters -one rung higher than tweets. But because bloggers are free of advertising - as such revenue even websites are dependent - they are not bound to influence the end story to please an editor.

In fact, simply because the vacuum of truth compels them, bloggers are charged as curators of modern history, lest main stream media erase truth from record permanently.

Originally posted to The Big Picture on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 06:14 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

  •  One sentence tells me you don't know what (4+ / 0-)

    you are talking about:

    To be clear, a state court ruling against the U.S. Supreme court supersedes federal law.

    That's wrong in so, so, so many ways.  

    I suggest that you read the diary of someone who DOES know what he is talking about -- Adam B, the lawyer for this site.

    As well as this and this. In both, Adam comments -- you ought to read them.

    I'm a lawyer, and this has been reported in legal circles by the way.  It's not being given much reporting in the mainstream press because, as Adam says, it's going to be fleeting -- it will be reversed by the SCOTUS pretty quickly.  

    •  One sentence tells me... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...that your not really a lawyer.

      I removed the offending line - only one. Good job and thank you very much for pointing out my inaccuracy.

      However, this case in not as cut and dried as you may think (See here) and (here). If you were a lawyer you would know this before putting your foot in your mouth. A lawyer never cross examines unless he is sure of the answer, and you cannot know how this will end up, even if Adam says so. If Adam were Chief of Supreme Court John Roberts, I would put more weight in what he writes, I suppose.

      As for lack of coverage, are you saying that because this is likely to be overturned, that it is not in fact newsworthy? I disagree. My diary (first ever on KOS) was only up for 5 minutes before three comments on my diary appeared. Surely, you were all quick to point out my inaccuracy - but this does not mean people don't want to read opinion - no matter how colorful and farfetched it might be.

      Yes, I'm out of my depth. But this is not about the legalities of the case, this is opinion about the effects and ramifications on our 99%. I proved that by removing one line and adding 2 paragraphs.

      So, maybe your right. One line tells you something...but not that I don't know anything.

      •  read your own links. it's cut and dried (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:


        The Montana Supreme Court called SCOTUS on this.  And when SCOTUS reverses, the disingenousness of this aspect of CU will be on full display for all
        Paul S. Ryan, associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, characterized the Montana Supreme Court's reliance on factual findings culled from a century of state history, plus the trial testimony from contemporary politicians of both parties, as "an antidote to the crabbed view of corruption" adopted in Citizens United. Nevertheless, most observers, including Ryan, do not anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court accepting that antidote. The ruling in Citizens United that independent spending does not give rise to corruption introduced a categorical rule that no factual reality can overcome as long as the decision's five-justice majority remains on the Court.
  •  Trey - Adam B wrote a diary on this today (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Villanova Rhodes, coffeetalk

    After you read it, you might think about deleting yours.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 02:24:22 PM PST

  •  Bloggers (3+ / 0-)

    better find another way soon, because these here innertubez are compromised, too. But I still want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for pointing this out so succinctly:

    Employees of any main stream news organizations receive benefit packages, salaries, paid holidays and 401k plans. These people, while still the 99%, are dis-associated with their brethren because of who they work for. While they may sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street movement, they are politically bound from participating in these movements.

    In other words, if you fear for your job and for the income that it provides, because you fear for the loss of your home and food to eat, then you are compromised, my friend. Your fear governs the truth you believe and report.

    Most people stop at the end of your first sentence, thinking "oh, all people on teevee news are rich and therefore not one of us", and don't critically think through to the logical conclusion. MOST people associated with teevee news aren't rich, they're just trying to make a living like the rest of us.

    But they live in fear of their jobs.

    Because this fucking court decision allows such employees to be fired if their editors order them to report something specific and they refuse to do so.

    (warning: PDF)

     THIS is why those people on your news channels look you right in the eye and lie to your face:

    (Their) fear governs the truth (they) believe and report.

    WHEN will we wake up and understand that this latest FAIL of the media is not happening in some kind of vacuum? This kind of shit will not end until we restore to our communications REAL NEWS OUTLETS, instead of the interlinked networks of manufactured propaganda and bullshit. The shit has been spewing unchecked for at least a goddamned generation now.

    See my sig...heartily tipped and rec'd!

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 06:42:03 PM PST

  •  And I'll thank you to leave the diary up (5+ / 0-)

    As this is a very important issue and not everyone was hanging around when Adam B diaried.  

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 06:46:06 PM PST

  •  I heard about it today (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Trey Sugarleaf, qofdisks, ozsea1

    on the Ed show. He was saying there are several states mostly in the west with such laws on the books, many over 100 years old.

    The purpose was to protect the elections from being bought by the copper kings and such. Guess no much has changed has it?

    It is the heart that makes a man rich. He is rich according to what he is not what he has -Henry Ward Beecher

    by PSWaterspirit on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 08:32:44 PM PST

  •   news to me (4+ / 0-)

    Good post. And thanks just for caring. Welcome to Kos.

    The Job Killing Republican Party is directly responsible for the Great Bush Recession.

    by earthling1 on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 09:33:09 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site