- Posted April 4, 2014 by
Watertown, New York
This iReport is part of an assignment:
- Hagel 'Not Up To the White House's Mission Creep"? - Maybe Rumsfeld is Available
- US Policy Against Paying Ransom for Hostages Depends On Who the Hostages Are
- Army. Be All You Can Be- Unless You Have a Tattoo
- Want a "Better Online Experience"? Google, Face Book, and the US Gov Think You Do- Sharing Your Information- Still a Choice?
- The US Supreme Court Has Granted 'Pinocchio' Peoplehood, But Failed to Give Him a Conscience
The U.S. Supreme Court and Wealthy vs. The Rest of Us
"In an unusual dissent from the bench, Justice Stephen Breyer said the decision, quote, "eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve." Judge Breyer went on to say, quote, "If the court in Citizens United opened a door, today’s decision may well open a floodgate."
So now, zillionaires like David and Charles Koch, and Sheldon Adelson can give virtually unlimited amounts of money directly to their candidate of choice.
It appears that U.S. Supreme Court Justice and the four other conservative justices believed that current campaign contribution restrictions were to encumbering for the 600 people like the Kochs and Adelson that gave more last year than the rest of the 300 million of us could afford to give in our lifetimes.
Each week, Democrats send 20-25 solicitations for campaign donations.in the amount of $3 to $25. You can give more if you can afford it.
But the majority of Americans that contributed last year gave less than $200.
It's not that we don't want to. It's that most of us can't afford to give much more than $200 total a year.
How many $200 contributions from individuals would it take to equal what the Kochs contribute to their choices for representatives?
If 500,000 voters contributed $200, to Democratic candidates, it would just equal what Sheldon Adelson gave to the Republican party last year.
But the Kochs? That's a different matter entirely.
And if you reduce the contribution for the average donor to $3, it would take millions of contributions to offset the campaign contributions of two billionaires.
Amd Justice John Roberts is concerned about the Kochs having the opportunity to express their opinion with their money in our elections? In all fairness, they're the Kochs' elections too but, with what the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled, the elections are now the Koch's literally rather than in the figurative sense.
Roberts is wrong.
He and the other conservatives on the Supreme Court are no more than partisan hacks that rule for their party and for corporate America's interests.
When Roosevelt faced the same type of resistance in the 1930s with his New Deal programs that were blocked by the Supreme Court then, he suggested 'packing the Court with as many as 15 Justices that would dilute the influence of the conservatives that neither had the people or the country's interests in mind.
Eventually, with that threat, the Court began to modify its opinions, and the New Deal brought us out of that Great Depression.
We need to do the same thing now because the U.S. Supreme Court has been stacked with conservatives that are no more than 'rubber stamps' for the Kochs and Adelson's of our country.
Money should not be speech, nor should corporations be people!
The Supreme Court now cares little for the rights of the majority and instead serves and kisses the ring of the oligarchy.