Recent news and notes on the movement to overturn Citizens United –
About a dozen members of the Gaylord 99% group gathered on the Otsego County Building lawn Wednesday and marched to U.S. Rep. Dan Benishek’s Gaylord office to deliver a petition in protest of corporate contributions in elections.
Masslive.com (The Republican)
Activists collect nearly 6,000 signatures
Volunteers associated with the progressive group MoveOn.org sent Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s Senate office signatures from 5,749 Massachusetts citizens on Friday calling on him to support a Constitutional amendment overturning a Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in an election.
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce To SCOTUS: Ignore The Evidence!
According to the Chamber, there is “no evidence” that the massive sums of money injected into the electoral process by corporate interests has resulted in corruption. Not only that, the Chamber asserts that even if there is “empirical evidence” that corruption has resulted from corporate involvement in state elections, the Court “should not” consider it.
The Citizens United decision that Democrats so roundly condemn was a landmark and clear signal that the Supreme Court takes a dim view of campaign finance restrictions. But it is not the only factor in the surge of money into politics, and its effects have been less profound than often portrayed.
Of course, Congress, in its current composition, would sooner vote to socialize the entire health care industry than muster a two-thirds majority to scrap the system which put them into office. As is typical of issues that challenge the privileges and power of the wealthy, their reluctance has nothing to do with public opinion.
The High Court’s Citizens United ruling has given corporations unprecedented flexibility to act on their own behalf to influence election campaigns and results. Yet, the same Court has now said that groups of actual human beings—trade unions that have organized public-sector workers—must sacrifice their flexibility in order to meet standards never before demanded of labor organizations. Do we detect a pattern here?