Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that could have severe effects on the very nature of government in this country. The majority ruled 5-4 to turn back campaign finance regulations to limit special interest and corporate money in the electoral process. In short the court ruled that the moneyed interests are within their rights to drown to dissent in the public arena with an avalanche of advertising spending, thereby undermining the very concept of free and fair elections.
For Justice Clarence Thomas, the move didn’t go far enough. Not only does Justice Thomas believe in the concept that money equals free speech, but the spending of money to buy airtime should be able to be done in secret.
In his partial dissent, he wrote the following:
“I join all but Part IV of the Court’s opinion. Political speech is entitled to robust protection under the First Amendment. Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has never been reconcilable with that protection. By striking down §203, the Court takes an important first step toward restoring full constitutional protection to speech that is indispensable to the effective and intelligent use of the processes of popular government.
“I dissent from Part IV of the Court’s opinion, however, because the Court’s constitutional analysis does not go far enough. The disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements in BCRA §§201 and 311 are also unconstitutional.”
In a practical application, what he is saying is this. A corporation wishes to support a candidate that will back legislation favorable to the corporation in a race against a candidate that is against the same legislation. As it stands, if the corporation contributes above a certain amount of money, it is required to report it.
Say the Blarney Machine Gun Company wishes to support Mr. Smith, who is for lifting a ban on machine guns, and contributes $100,000 to advertising against Mr. Wesson, who is against lifting the ban, they have to report the fact. This leaves a paper trail by which the public can be informed that Mr. Smith is being bankrolled by a company who has an interest in seeing Mr. Wesson defeated.
Justice Thomas believes that the public doesn’t need to know that the advertisements by the group “Citizens For The Legalization Of Machine Guns” are in fact funded by the Blarney Machine Gun Company. In his view, such transparency is an unconstitutional threat to our system of government.
In fact, he wrote as much: “Congress may not abridge the right to anonymous speech based on the simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information.”
As an example of this, he brought forth the claim much trumpeted by the right that donors to the pro-Prop 8 movement in California were targeted because donors of more than $100 were required to give their name and address. In his dissent, he trumpets the claim that “some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result.”
While it is true that some businesses and large donors were picketed, the claims of threats and violence are questionable at best. This in contrast to the rash of anti-gay violence that accompanied the push for Prop 8?
“Supporters recounted being told: ‘Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have
gunned you down along with each and every other supporter,’ or, ‘we have plans for you and your friends.'” he continues.
He completely ignores the hate violence perpetrated by Prop 8 supporters; documented incidents as opposed to phantom allegations. Why is this?
Could it be that he is more inclined to give weight to stories that support his own ideological views than to actual incidents of violence against a group of which he doesn’t approve by people who share his views? Is this what being a fair and impartial jurist is about? Could it be that Justice Thomas believes it is better to throw our entire system of government into question rather than to address the civil rights of a group he dislikes?
Or is this possibly just an excuse? Perhaps this is simply a justification, an excuse, to push an agenda that needs something controversial to stir a gut reaction rather than reason. If you shift the focus from the real issue, which is the potential selling of our government to the highest bidder, to a phony issue on the side, anti-gay propaganda, you can distract people from your real intentions.
The right has been railing against any sort of limit on corporate money for years, as they know corporate money is most likely going to bankroll their candidates. Money buys votes, and therefore money buys power. Unfettered money buys unfettered power. This is what Justice Thomas is advocating.
The Supreme Court of the United States has opened the doors to a new level of purchased influence in our government, and Justice Thomas believes the court hasn’t gone far enough. He is advocating using the First Amendment in such a way as to trample the very spirit of both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself. As such, I believe he and his ilk have no business sitting on the highest court in the nation.
It makes one wonder at the wisdom of the founding fathers in not providing an avenue for removal of a Justice from the court.
Copyright 2010 – Mary Rae McPherson
Filed under: Political Blogging | Tagged: Commentary, Opinion, Politics, Supreme Court | Leave a comment »
Random Notes From The Ozark Foothills 
Justice Thomas Using The First Amendment To Kill The Constitution
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that could have severe effects on the very nature of government in this country. The majority ruled 5-4 to turn back campaign finance regulations to limit special interest and corporate money in the electoral process. In short the court ruled that the moneyed interests are within their rights to drown to dissent in the public arena with an avalanche of advertising spending, thereby undermining the very concept of free and fair elections.
For Justice Clarence Thomas, the move didn’t go far enough. Not only does Justice Thomas believe in the concept that money equals free speech, but the spending of money to buy airtime should be able to be done in secret.
In his partial dissent, he wrote the following:
“I join all but Part IV of the Court’s opinion. Political speech is entitled to robust protection under the First Amendment. Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has never been reconcilable with that protection. By striking down §203, the Court takes an important first step toward restoring full constitutional protection to speech that is indispensable to the effective and intelligent use of the processes of popular government.
“I dissent from Part IV of the Court’s opinion, however, because the Court’s constitutional analysis does not go far enough. The disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements in BCRA §§201 and 311 are also unconstitutional.”
In a practical application, what he is saying is this. A corporation wishes to support a candidate that will back legislation favorable to the corporation in a race against a candidate that is against the same legislation. As it stands, if the corporation contributes above a certain amount of money, it is required to report it.
Say the Blarney Machine Gun Company wishes to support Mr. Smith, who is for lifting a ban on machine guns, and contributes $100,000 to advertising against Mr. Wesson, who is against lifting the ban, they have to report the fact. This leaves a paper trail by which the public can be informed that Mr. Smith is being bankrolled by a company who has an interest in seeing Mr. Wesson defeated.
Justice Thomas believes that the public doesn’t need to know that the advertisements by the group “Citizens For The Legalization Of Machine Guns” are in fact funded by the Blarney Machine Gun Company. In his view, such transparency is an unconstitutional threat to our system of government.
In fact, he wrote as much: “Congress may not abridge the right to anonymous speech based on the simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information.”
As an example of this, he brought forth the claim much trumpeted by the right that donors to the pro-Prop 8 movement in California were targeted because donors of more than $100 were required to give their name and address. In his dissent, he trumpets the claim that “some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result.”
While it is true that some businesses and large donors were picketed, the claims of threats and violence are questionable at best. This in contrast to the rash of anti-gay violence that accompanied the push for Prop 8?
“Supporters recounted being told: ‘Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have
gunned you down along with each and every other supporter,’ or, ‘we have plans for you and your friends.'” he continues.
He completely ignores the hate violence perpetrated by Prop 8 supporters; documented incidents as opposed to phantom allegations. Why is this?
Could it be that he is more inclined to give weight to stories that support his own ideological views than to actual incidents of violence against a group of which he doesn’t approve by people who share his views? Is this what being a fair and impartial jurist is about? Could it be that Justice Thomas believes it is better to throw our entire system of government into question rather than to address the civil rights of a group he dislikes?
Or is this possibly just an excuse? Perhaps this is simply a justification, an excuse, to push an agenda that needs something controversial to stir a gut reaction rather than reason. If you shift the focus from the real issue, which is the potential selling of our government to the highest bidder, to a phony issue on the side, anti-gay propaganda, you can distract people from your real intentions.
The right has been railing against any sort of limit on corporate money for years, as they know corporate money is most likely going to bankroll their candidates. Money buys votes, and therefore money buys power. Unfettered money buys unfettered power. This is what Justice Thomas is advocating.
The Supreme Court of the United States has opened the doors to a new level of purchased influence in our government, and Justice Thomas believes the court hasn’t gone far enough. He is advocating using the First Amendment in such a way as to trample the very spirit of both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself. As such, I believe he and his ilk have no business sitting on the highest court in the nation.
It makes one wonder at the wisdom of the founding fathers in not providing an avenue for removal of a Justice from the court.
Copyright 2010 – Mary Rae McPherson
Filed under: Political Blogging | Tagged: Commentary, Opinion, Politics, Supreme Court | Leave a comment »