- Posted April 3, 2014 by
Watertown, New York
This iReport is part of an assignment:
- Abuse. Who's to Blame? The NFL, Rice and Peterson? Yes, But So Are the 'Misogynist Colleagues In Congress' and Religion
- Yahoo's E-Mail Isn't Working. Ad Revenue Is Down. Coincidence, Marissa Mayer?
- Stereotypes? Why Do Solo Mustaches & Goatees Have Such a Bad Reputation?
- America's Allies Are Funding ISIS, ISIL or IS, or Whatever You Want To Call Them
- Obama Says Inversion Is Wrong Even If It's Legal, But Drones Strikes are Legal Even If Amnesty International Says They're Wrong
Free Speech or Plutocracy? Marginalizing the Average Voter- Supreme Court Decision, Not So Supreme
But as Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, says, "It's not true that the Republican Party only represents the wealthy."
With the latest assault on the American middle class, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt another blow to our democracy and representative government.
The "I'm only going to call 'balls and strikes' " Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that 'money is free speech' and then used a comparison that newspapers could endorse more than one candidate. What?
Roberts must believe that most Americans would accept this analogy as being logical. He underestimates most Americans.
With the McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission decision, he further erodes the campaign finance restrictions and hands future elections to more conservative candidates who are more than willing to do the international corporation's bidding.
In an article from Truthout, Mike Ludwig outlines just what's at stake and how this activist Chief Justice continues to act out of partisan loyalty rather than in the interest of the American middle class.
"Free Speech or Plutocracy?
The majority opinion, delivered by Roberts, claims these limits on individual donations will keep political corruption in check. The Roberts opinion, which was supported by the court's conservative justices, argues that the cap on the total amount and individual can spend during an election cycle can prevent a donor from giving to as many candidates as he or she chooses, which violates free speech rights under the First Amendment.
Like the Citizens United ruling, the majority opinion views political speech and the money spent by wealthy donors to support candidates and influence elections as one and the same."
Story continued here:
With Robert's decision, it appears that our country is no longer 'our country'. It has been taken from us by a court that is supposed to protect average Americans rights to have fair elections. It's now a country " by the rich, for the rich and of the rich"- and all a 'perfectly legal coup'.
It's time for the 99% to rise.
We can expect the lies in the political advertising from the Right to continue. Now they can buy even more air time to convince the weak-minded and uninformed Foxbots that the republican Party 'has their back and that Democrats are bad for our democracy.