US Supreme Court crushes campaign finance restrictions
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy in the majority opinion.


In a stunning decision, the Roberts Court opened the floodgates to out-of-control corporate and union spending in elections. This wrong-headed ruling doesn't just disrupt the way elections work. It poses a direct and immediate threat to the vibrancy of our democracy.

An already corrupt system that makes it hard for citizens to have a voice could become a chaotic free-for-all in which ordinary people's voices will be permanently drowned out of the electoral process.

Only a popular uprising in response to this decision can save the day. Everything you and Common Cause have fought for is on the line.

We have to immediately press Congress to pass the Fair Elections Now Act -- public financing of campaigns. It's the only way ordinary people can have a fighting chance that we won't be completely overwhelmed by special interests.

We also must make it clear that corporations, unions, or anyone else exploiting the Roberts Court's indefensible ruling will be exposed to public scrutiny. We'll have to act fast if we want to prevent the 2010 elections from becoming a special interest-driven tragedy.

With spending limits thrown out, corporations and unions could spend as much as $6 billion to directly influence the election of candidates in 2010. And that's just if they match what they spend lobbying Congress in an election cycle.

As massive corporate spending goes flying into campaigns, the opportunity to make progress on critical issues like health care and energy will go flying out the window.
We can't let that happen.

This is one of the biggest challenges Common Cause has ever faced in our 40-year history. The Roberts Court's ruling has opened the door to an all-out corporate raid on our democracy.

Our only chance is to make it clear to corporations, unions, and politicians that the people of America won't let them do what they think the Roberts Court has given them permission to try.

You can lead the way in responding to this crisis.
Please act without delay.

Bob Edgar
Common Cause


Supreme Court Decision Gives Corporations Dangerous Clout
The 5-4 decision will make money even more important in U.S. politics.

Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Finance Restrictions

"It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans...
~ President Obama

Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism and attacked the use of corporate personhood in the case: "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case."

Was the Supreme Court decision giving corporations the free speech rights of individuals the worst decision since Dred Scott?

If Corporations have the same rights as individuals under the 1st Amendment, why not the 2nd Amendment too? Why can't Wal-Mart Exxon and Halliburton have private armies? How many wars will we need to fight when corporate profits and not the American People determine the need for the declaration of war. Who is going to speak against them? Do you think the Internet will remain free when corporate interests pay to install lawmakers who think China's got it exactly right, let the people read what we want them to read and post what we want them to post? Who will even know what's happening when they set up laws to control all media to get the, "Nothing to see here." message out every single day?


By now, you’ve probably heard something about the campaign finance decision by the Supreme Court. Before you come to conclusions about how it affects us, or whether it was a bad decision, I suggest you read these two excellent posts by Glenn Greenwald:
Pete Guither DWR

* What the Supreme Court Got Right

* Follow-up on the Citizens United Case


1/26/10: Corporate Person, Corporate State
January 25, 2010

American Corporate Power & the U.S. Supreme Court

1st Amendment Corporation


Corporations trump individuals say the Supremes
The Supreme Court today overturned a century-old restriction on corporations using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that companies have a free-speech right to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.


Keith Olbermann U2b


Bong Hits 4 Jesus Nov 10, 2008
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that has attracted attention mainly because of its eccentric story line: An Alaska student was suspended from high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while the Olympic torch passed by. But the case raises important issues of freedom of expression and student censorship that go far beyond the words on that banner. The court should affirm the appeals court’s well-reasoned decision that when the school punished the student it violated his First Amendment rights.

Supreme Court Nixes 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'  
CN Source: Associated Press June 25, 2007 Washington, DC

-- The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.


Keith Olbermann
Jan 21, 2010 8_48 PM.mp4 U2b

PART 1 of 2 - SCOTUS Decision

Jan 21, 2010 8_48 PM.mp4 U2b
PART 2 of 2 - SCOTUS Decision

About The Supreme Court Case of Citizens United vs. FEC U2b
Keith Olbermann Interviews Alan Grayson

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" U2b


Harper's Senate Power Move
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has named five new senators, giving the Tories control in both houses of Parliament and greater sway over the legislative agenda.

UNODC promotes human rights abuse

The right to drug treatment

Article 67(5) “Officers who implement drug treatment and rehabilitation measures in accordance with the right to drug treatment shall not be prosecuted for their activities.”

Compulsory drug treatment

Article 71(4) “If a person is drug dependent to any substance as specified … a guardian, relative or authority can refer, or arrest and refer, the person to drug treatment at a hospital, public drug treatment facility, or any drug treatment facility.”


Last Edited By: DdC Jan 30 10 2:35 AM. Edited 1 time.