Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Primary Headline on 2/2/10:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (23 comments)

Five Supremes: Corrupt to the Core

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend
Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (2 fans)   -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

Testifying under oath during confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito offered assurances about their respect for legal precedent and the appropriate role of the judiciary.

The recent decision of the court overturning settled campaign finance law achieved through bipartisan action of the elected legislative and executive branches was contemptuous of precedent, aggressive in its political intent, extremist in its impact and radical in its usurpation of power against the elected branches of government.

The "anything goes" ethic of a politics held in wide disrepute now extends to five Supreme Court justices who rule that unlimited sums of unregulated money can be spent to buy power over our republic.

They hold in contempt the warning of Madison in Federalist 10 that special-interest factions could overwhelm the nation. They ignore the warnings of Washington about the dangers of foreign entanglements that may, under this decision, if not clarified, further corrupt the governance of the nation. They hold in contempt the time-honored truth of Lincoln that America is the land of the people, by the people and for the people, and not the property of the money, by the money and for the money at the expense of people who lack the money.

Under the Supreme Court decision, companies that received investment from Nazi financiers and armed the Nazi war machine could have spent unlimited money to destroy elected officials who opposed their agenda.

Under this decision, oil companies dependent on the good will of unfriendly nations, which receive investment from foreign sources, including some that covertly fund bin Laden and others who overtly despise Israel, could spend unlimited money to promote an agenda hostile to our own.


The sheer extremism of this decision, the contempt for legal precedent that preceded it and the confirmation testimony that promised to honor this precedent, the disregard for the widely held view that Washington is corrupted by money in the service of greed, will go down in history alongside the opinion that slaves were property of slave-owners.

This decision is reminiscent of the mercantilist view of King George III, in which the power of the few with money would colonize the many who lack it, a view anathema to the essence of our republic, a view that inspired the American Revolution fought to end it.

I propose that Congress pass an American Elections for Americans Only Act of 2010 that would prohibit unlimited, unregulated spending by American subsidiaries of foreign companies and firms or entities that benefit from foreign investment or capital.

This act would simply prohibit unlimited spending, clarify ambiguities in the court decision and require the court to decide whether foreign interests have free-speech rights to dominate American elections.

A recent Gallup poll found that 76 percent of Americans believe government should limit corporate political spending. There will be a tidal wave of public support for making American elections American-only.

Our system is corrupt to the core. If a special interest offered bags of cash in return for a politician's vote, it would be a criminal felony. Our system is designed to legalize what is essentially this transaction. The least we can do is not further globalize the corruption.

 

Brent Budowsky is a regular columnist on thehill.com. He served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
23 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Let me quote the Supreme's decision: by Darren Wolfe on Tuesday, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:37:56 PM
Well! by steve scheetz on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:26:31 AM
Darren.... by Michael Shaw on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:50:17 PM
Shredding the Constitution by Darren Wolfe on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:24:48 PM
But this decision does silence people Darren by Michael Shaw on Sunday, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:51:34 PM
A letter from Alan Grayson by John Lorenz on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:16:23 AM
Alen is totally worng in his letter by steve scheetz on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:29:13 AM
Judges selling out Americans by Steven G. Erickson on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:07:43 AM
Absolute corruption without absolute power? by TomK on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:29:23 PM
Title of this piece is wrong by BaronVonRothschild on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:46:40 PM
Well Brent by Michael Shaw on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:45:16 PM
Who not let only registered voters contribute to campaigns? by Eric Blair on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:01:29 PM
Eric by Michael Shaw on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:57:24 AM
IS Your Vote For Sale? by Hoss Hoss on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:05:19 PM
This ruling by Michael Shaw on Sunday, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:58:04 PM
Does the NY Times... by Joe Reeser on Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:47:03 PM
Impeach the Fascist Five, by Samuel Bryan on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:27:28 AM
Perhaps not but by Starbuck on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:30:35 PM
The stockholders by Michael Shaw on Monday, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:59:05 PM
This is a by sommers on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 5:09:56 AM
They can't help it.... by Michael Morris on Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:31:00 AM
Read the decision by Recce1 on Saturday, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:16:26 AM
I would further add by Michael Shaw on Sunday, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:01:07 PM