Citizens United Decision

"Social welfare" groups spent $137 million on the 2010 elections.

An excellent write-up of the deplorable situation in state and local races, where a few large donations can easily tip the balance in an election, and the source of the funds can remain unknown to the voters.

The Supreme Court recognized the importance of publicly naming donors, so "citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyd interests."

Instead, the decision has fostered a whole new era of secrecy.

According to the USA Today Editorial, these "social welfare" groups spent $137 million on the 2010 elections.

NC joins battle against Citizens United decision

Stepping up to fight undue influence by corporations:

Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia are backing Montana in its fight to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision from being used to strike down state laws restricting corporate campaign spending.

The entity behind this attack on states' rights is (of course) a Republican-approved, oil & gas-funded, astroturf-carpeted organization called the American Tradition Partnership, which has been waging war against clean, renewable energy for some time now. I'll let Sue Sturgis from Facing South elucidate further:

Citizens United and the erosion of 1st Amendment protections

In an effort to break a debate stalemate which seems to have wandered down the lost-in-the-woods side trail of "one voice or many voices" when describing the Citizens United decision, I thought it prudent to refocus on the two most important words of said decision: "General treasuries". It's within these two words where our 1st Amendment freedoms and protections are being weathered under the landscape-changing forces of money, and we should at least be able to recognize the threat, even if we can't escape the storm.

Syndicate content