It is all too obvious since Karl Rove has set up several money 'laudering' PACs that receive corporate monies to funnel them into 'influence peddling.' The Tea Party and its success in such a short period of time is proof of that. Has The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the National Socialist Party of the USA or The Workers World Party had such success and monies in their coffers? Absolutely not, yet from before President Obama took his oath of office (which was botched by Roberts) these men have conspired to grown a political power that would dismantle the Middle Class and profit from it. Yes, conspired. Yes, laundering money.
Are the monies political candidates using coming from donations from citizens these days? No, there again is a corrupted Supreme Court that is dismanteling the Middle Class while allowing corporations to actually claim they have a personality. Next they'll be claiming they have a pulse and respirate carbon dioxide just as citizens do. They won't be polluting unless the federal government wants to regulate people that breath. I am dead serious about this mess.
The US Supreme Court wiped out as much as 100 years of campaign financing law in one decision by the same five bozos. The decision is 'weighted' to favor corporations over citizens. The States need to legislate laws that benefit citizens and challenge this disaster of a Supreme Court. To illustrate exactly the bias of the Robert's Court it is easily noted that the Citizen's United (these groups always have these inclusive patriotic names that anyone can pick them out in a crowd) case was given special priority in the public announcement of the decision. It had to be done before it was anticipated. That not only shows corruption of the court in 'playing to the media' but it also clearly illustrates the lack of proper demeanor of the court. In other words, the Obama Oath to Office, the special attention to media releases are all inappropriate demeanors for the Supreme Court. It is all corruption and disrespect of the citizen. The Supreme Court is not removed from public discourse or media pressure, as a matter of fact it contributes to it. That is grossly inappropriate and malpractice. The ethics of the Robert's Court is very much in question.
As stated in the PBS video, the Citizen's United decision was considered important in that it supressed influences in the electorate and it was called censorship by Justice Kennedy. In this decision 'the ability of the citizen' to compete with corporations for influence in political campaigns was never 'weighted.' What I heard of this decision which was wisely written by the supposed new 'swing vote' of the Court since Justice O'Conner left; is that current campaign financing 'chills speech.' That wasn't defined in the decsion as to what exactly constitutes 'chilled speech' when Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion. What Justice Stevens stated was that the majoirty decision is a sledge hammer and not a scalpel of the First Admendment. Yet, in the words of Justice Kennedy the 'chilled speech' was a concern. If the Court had examined 'chilled speech' they would have noted citizens are 'the most burdened' with having their words heard over corporations with huge amounts of money to spend on paid advertising and investment into PACs.. "Chilled speech' hardly belongs to the wealthy so much as the Middle Class and Poor and the laws have to be 'weighted' in the favor of the lower income economic classes of the USA.
We know that money and wealth directly effect elections, therefore, it would be the average citizen that has their speech chilled and not corporations as Citizen's United would have everyone favor. The decision is grossly corrupt and inappropriately decided.
