Will SCOTUS Confront the Results of Citizens United?

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

In Citizens United, the court confidently predicted that unlimited “independent” corporate spending wouldn’t “corrupt” politicians because it would be totally independent of candidates. The court upheld and praised existing laws that require the disclosure of campaign spending, assuring us that they would provide citizens with all the information necessary to “see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”

But Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has made a mockery of this optimism. In 2012, Walker successfully fought off a recall effort by working hand-in-glove with supposedly “independent” dark money groups, raising millions from billionaires and corporations with the promise that their identities would not be disclosed. Some of those big secret donors later saw their top priorities pushed into law.

Walker got caught, but an investigation into the scheme was shut down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which was dominated by justices who benefited from at least $10 million in spending from the same groups that had coordinated with Walker’s campaign.

The Wisconsin court contorted the law to give its supporters and Walker a get-out-of-jail-free card, issuing a decision that shattered central concepts of campaign finance law while creating new ways for unlimited money to secretly buy influence with elected officials.

(snip)

Breaking new ground, the court declared that secretive coordination schemes like Walker’s are constitutionally protected, as long as the coordinated ads don’t expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate. At right, you can see an example of a TV commercial that’s not considered a campaign ad under this rationale. The target, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) was Walker’s opponent in the recall race.

(snip)

That meant that the press and the public could not connect those secret financial interests with the policies Walker pursued in office.

For example, after Walker won the election, his top legislative priority for the next session was passing a mining bill drafted by an out-of-state mining corporation called Gogebic Taconite.

During the heated debate over the bill – a proposal met with protest from environmental groups, conservationists and Native American tribes – Wisconsinites never knew that the Gogebic Taconite’s CEO had secretly donated $700,000 to Wisconsin Club for Growth.

The secret $700,000 donation was 22 times greater than the roughly $32,000 that the mining company had disclosed in donations to Wisconsin candidates in 2011 and 2012.

Similarly, the public didn’t know that the CEO of Menards Hardware had secretly given $1.5 million to Wisconsin Club for Growth at Walker’s behest. After Walker won the election, Menards was awarded $1.8 million in tax credits from the economic development agency that Walker chaired. Menards also benefited from the Walker administration’s reduction in environmental enforcement. Under previous governors, the company had repeatedly faced million dollar-plus fines for violating state environmental laws.

(snip)

http://billmoyers.com/story/confronting-citizens-united/

This is a good read.

[underthematrix]

1. Is there a CU case pending before the high court?

[Uncle Joe]

2. To my knowledge, no and according to the OP this hasn't been taken up yet.

In the absence of a ninth justice, following the death of Antonin Scalia and Republican senators’ refusal to grant hearings for a nominee to replace him, the evenly divided U.S. Supreme Court has been steering clear of cases likely to produce a 4-4 deadlock. So whether the justices will take up this politically charged case remains to be seen.

For now, the Wisconsin example provides a sobering look at a deregulated campaign finance landscape: where voters are left in the dark, secret donors get special treatment and politicians and donors can flout the law and buy the judges they need to get away with it.

http://billmoyers.com/story/confronting-citizens-united/

[underthematrix]

3. I wondered because the high court doesn't make law

they interpret it within our constitutional framework

[Uncle Joe]

4. They certainly seemed to make law with Citizens United taking a narrow decision and using it to

overturn decades of precedent.

[underthematrix]

6. Yes they re-interpreted the precedent not with the PUBLIC interest in mind but

with corporations. Until Americans recognize that they as consumers are the engines of wealth, we will not be able to have much impact. Consumerism is the most significant enemy of economic justice and I just don't get why people don't get that.

Corporations don't produce wealth consumers do.

[silvershadow]

5. Something I've been wondering. nt