This Month Marks the 3rd Anniversary of One of the Worst Decisions in History
Last year, comedian Stephen Colbert’s “super” political action committee (PAC) raised over a million dollars that he said was used “to materially influence the elections – in full accordance with the law.” “It’s the way our founding fathers would have wanted it,” he said, “if they had founded corporations instead of just a country.”
Colbert was poking fun at what many Americans believe to be one of the worst U.S. Supreme Court decisions in our nation's history.
This month marks the 3rd anniversary of the controversial Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision, which narrowly passed by a 5-4 vote on January 21, 2010 and gave corporations the status of individuals for the purpose of election contributions.
Following that decision and others in lower courts, the FEC implemented changes in the election laws that further expanded corporate power. Super-PACs were born to legally channel unlimited amounts of money to campaigns, giving corporate interests enormous influence over government policy.
With public welfare already taking a back seat to corporate profit, the Citizens United decision was utterly misguided. The inevitable effect of the ruling was of such concern that even retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor spoke against it.
In the three years since the decision, a national movement has taken root to overturn Citizens United by amending the U.S. Constitution. There is broad support from businesses, organizations, and individuals across the political spectrum.
In October 2012, New Jersey became then the 9th state in the nation to pass a resolution supporting an amendment-to-overturn.
Included with this post is an impressive 27-page paper written by Elizabeth Rassweiler, who has a masters degree from New York University and further graduate work in public administration. Ms. Rassweiler does a commendable job explaining the impact of the Citizens United decision, other related cases, and subsequent FEC actions. The paper’s introduction (the first 4 pages) provides of good summary of the key issues and is a very good read. The paper is current as of January 2012.
Belford Bob
7:06 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
What is your stance on union contributions like the UAW and SEIU? Funny how they are missing from this manifesto.
bd
7:39 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Roe vs Wade has resulted in killing millions of children---how many have died as a result of this??????
NotDifficult
11:15 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
What do the comments above have to do with the article?
Kathy Giaquinto
2:30 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Comment #1 is directly on point with the article. Comment #2 is ludicrous since RvW does not allow you to kill children. In fact it has kept millions of unwanted children from being born and then starved and abused and allowed to grow up like the miscreant over at BB&B.
...
bd
5:26 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
both are decisions by the SCOTUS, those who value human life, who are pro-life and not pro-death would disagree with the author's premise about "worst decisions".
Kathy Giaquinto
5:33 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Pro-Life until ..... "one or two well placed rounds would have ended the problem" then you are pro death huh? Seems like you are mostly confused.
By the way - I am pro death penatly, pro suicide, pro abortion, pro eugenics, pro gun and I usually agree with nothing the author rambles on and on about.
bd
5:49 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
protect the innocent----punish the guilty
KB
9:37 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
NotDifficult- The members of the Middletown Township Committee were given Ipads for their offical business. Since that time, I've noticed a multitude of comments which spew out in a kneejerk fashion, to any criticism of their lofty ranks. Linda Baum had the audacity to challenge them in an election so it's "not difficult" to see what those comments are about. Can't wait to hear from the new batch..let's see, Leonardo Lenny? Navesink Nancy?
Joe
6:51 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
You see, Democrats want unfettered contributions from unions, but don't want anyone else to be able to contribute to their opposition. They want the entire media in the tank for Democrats, but don't like Fox News or talk radio to give a balanced view. See a pattern? Anything or any law that does not support the Democrat agenda is somehow "bad."
Linda Baum
2:57 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
So, folks, are you in favor of removing special interest money from elections or not? For or against overturning Citizens United?
jerseyswamps
3:13 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
So, "special interest money" includes unions?
Jack N. Coke
4:56 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Of course special interest money includes the unions, the gay & lesbian victory fund , eqca, meck PAC, honor PAC and all the others they spend 10x more than the kochs. adelson and Rove's people combined and the bad part in the case of unions is that the dues are compulsory and half of the people in the unions do not agree with the leftist views of people like randee weingarten.
jerseyswamps
6:45 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Jack, I agree. I was asking Ms. Baum if this includes unions or are unions somehow different because they supposedly represent the "good" struggling middle class.
How about an answer, Ms. Baum?
Joe
11:04 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Ms. Baum would not dare to include the unions since they run and fund the Democrat party in NJ. Just think, the president of the ironworkers union is the senate president!!!!! What chance does Christie have of really getting a handle on the destruction wreaked by the unions on the taxpayers of this state. Typical liberal hypocrisy. One set of rules for Democrats and another fpr the rest of the world. Reminds me of the exemption unions got from Obamacare.