Highest Court Goes To the Highest Bidder

Say what you say about Obama, but when he took issue during a 2010 State of the Union with the Supreme Court for reversing a law that removed corporate campaign spending limits - he saw then what we are seeing before our very eyes now. He said this: 

“With all due deference to the separation of powers, the court last week”[in 2010] "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."
[Alito was visibly upset with the comment]



Obama cared about appearances, the possibility of the Supreme Court being influenced by anything other than the well-being of the nation’s people was a thought he could not fathom. So what's the big deal? Here are three significant reasons election money should be controlled:

1. Disproportionate Influence:

When billionaires pour massive amounts of money into campaigns, it can drown out the voices of regular folks. This means policies might favor the wealthy instead of addressing the needs of everyday Americans.

2. Foreign Interests:

Contributions from foreign governments can compromise our sovereignty. If foreign entities have a say in our elections, they might push agendas that serve their interests, not ours. That's a slippery slope!

3. Corruption Risk:

Big money in politics raises red flags about corruption. When candidates are beholden to wealthy donors or foreign powers, it can undermine our democratic process and lead to decisions that benefit a select few rather than the general public. With this week’s High Court’s reversal of the Chevron case, you are seeing the Supreme Court playing out the 2nd verse to that very song. Taking away the federal agencies' abilities to refine the rules in their respective fields and giving that duty to Congress is tantamount to a brain surgeon giving a scalpel to the hospital administrator when he encounters difficult decisions during surgery. 



Why should we care?

Because that means the experts are no longer in charge, and those fundamental functions can be auctioned out to the highest corporate bidder. And now the law of the land can be adjusted, not to protect citizens, but to grow profit margins. 



Elections have consequences.

Thomas Y. Lynch

Obama Scolds SCOTUS

With all due deference to the separation of powers the court last week”[in 2010] "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."
[Alito was visibly upset with the comment