The New York Times is furious and scathing in its editorial about the decision of the Supreme Court, under the leadership of a man it calls "shameless," guaranteed to "thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century." Yesterday's decision to unleash corporate spending on elections "has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections."
And that's no exaggeration, except that the outcome is less about Republicans (corporations give to Democrats too, after all) than about handing our democracy over to transnational business interests. The Times, though, sees the ruling by a "slim" majority of the Court as part of what could be seen as a political conspiracy stretching back to 2000 which hands virtually all political power to one side.
The Citizens United ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-to-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.
This Court has made itself an embarrassment to Americans.
History is, indeed, likely to look harshly not only on the decision but the court that delivered it. The Citizens United ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-to-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.
There are remedies for what the small Roberts majority has done. Congress could "repair the presidential public finance system and create another one for Congressional elections to help ordinary Americans contribute to campaigns. It should also enact a law requiring publicly traded corporations to get the approval of their shareholders before spending on political campaigns." But the Times wants more. It wants to see the damage and shame of this ruling erased.
The real solution lies in getting the court’s ruling overturned. The four dissenters made an eloquent case for why the decision was wrong on the law and dangerous. With one more vote, they could rescue democracy.
So. Just how do we break the Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito + Kennedy cabal? Don't hold your breath!
Over at the Washington Post, a commentator notes the difficult of overturning the Court's decision:
President Obama said Thursday that he wants a "forceful response" to the ruling. That will not be easy, given its grounding in the Constitution. The decision invalidates state laws restricting corporate spending, which exist in nearly half the states. On a federal level, Congress could take steps to ameliorate the decision's impact, such as imposing stronger rules against coordination between campaigns and outside groups or lifting limits on the amount that political parties can spend in conjunction with their candidates. But the damage of Thursday's ruling, under the false flag of free speech, will not be easily repaired.
And another gives the Court's majority the respect it deserves for its staggering example of judicial activism.
The Robed Wonders purport to live by the conservative code that embraces narrow rulings and stable precedents and eschews sweeping, monumental pronouncements that abruptly disrupt the legal and political landscape. Not so in today's campaign finance decision ...
