Is Our Supreme Court for Sale?

Montana set limits on corporate spending in state elections in the early 1900s when it became apparent that the state’s copper robber barons had essentially replaced Montana democracy with a buy-yourself-a-politician form of government. Montana, fearing that the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United case would undo nearly a century of fairness in state elections, asked the Supreme Court to revisit their ruling. The Supreme Court refused to even hear arguments.

what eye thynk: Right now, if you are a member of the one percent, the Supreme Court has gifted you with your own personal chess board in the form of the U.S. political system, allowing you to purchase your own pack of politicians and to position them in any way you choose--no rules required.

The Supreme Court’s blindness to the damage they are causing is incredibly arrogant and frighteningly naive.

Their original ruling stated that corporations were people too and that independent expenditures would not give rise to corruption or even give the appearance of corruption. Really? How insulated from the real world are they that they can believe this would be true?

Citizens United was written to require that independent contributions would be disclosed; but today, the biggest donations are easily being hidden inside groups calling themselves “social welfare” organizations which grants them tax free status while leaving them free to use their resources to influence elections on all levels. This past April, a federal judge in Maine, (obviously more savvy than those serving on the Supreme Court), “outed” such a group. Details here: http://whateyethynk.blogspot.com/2012/04/when-youre-republican-bigotry-has-its.html

Today we have people like Sheldon Adelson giving $10M to the Super PAC Restore Our Future in support of Mitt Romney while stating that he is willing to spend $100M or “whatever it takes” to defeat President Obama. He has told colleagues that he will keep further contributions under wraps by channeling his money into non-profit, (read "phoney social welfare" groups) so as to avoid controversy.

I’m not denying Mr. Adelson his right to an opinion or his right to spend every penny he has in an attempt to achieve his personal goals, but his blatant declaration that he will circumvent the Supreme Court’s intentions by washing his millions through illegal non-profit groups is an open and clear disregard for the law of this land…one that the Supreme Court is choosing to ignore thus invalidating their contention that Citizens United is an uncorruptible, fair and equal decision.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in his dissenting statement that campaign spending since 2010 “casts grave doubt on the court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so”. Well at least someone is paying attention.

The Supreme Court’s majority decision to ignore the corruption that is proliferating around their Citizens United ruling makes me wonder exactly how much it costs to buy a Supreme Court judge.