SOLD to the highest bidder

This week the Supreme Court handed the country to multinational corporations. The Citizens United v. FEC ruling gave corporations unlimited ability to fund candidates. Unlimited. That means they can recruit or seduce their own candidates, give them enough money to blow a billionaire out of the water and buy the U. S. government, a seat at a time. Or all at once.

While constitutional scholars point out that this case actually strengthens First Amendment rights, the effect it will have on our political environment is undeniable.

But it’s one thing for U.S. firms to have their say. What about foreign companies that operate U.S. subsidiaries? Many of these, like American businesses, are owned by ordinary shareholders — but a host of others are owned, in whole or in part, by the foreign governments themselves.

One prominent examples is CITGO Petroleum Company — once the American-born Cities Services Company, but purchased in 1990 by the Venezuelan government-owned Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. The Citizens United ruling could conceivably allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has sharply criticized both of the past two U.S. presidents, to spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target.

And it’s not just Chavez. The Saudi government owns Houston’s Saudi Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM’s PC assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government’s Chinese Academy of Sciences. And Singapore’s APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations. A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also have significant sway in American electioneering.

Milton Friedman was wrong. Corporations are not people, and they don't deserve rights as such. Campaign finance needs to be reformed.

Happy New Decade

The first decade of the 21st century is now in the books. It can be remembered as the decade that conservatives were given everything they wanted. They were given all three branches of government by the branch they already owned; the Supreme Court. Osama Bin Laden gave them the war they always wanted with a bonus war, Afghanistan, thrown in. Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan and others gave them the economy they always wanted. They were also given the energy policy they wanted (drill, baby, drill), the gun control policy they wanted, (none), the unitary executive they wanted, and the media they always wanted(Fox Noise).

They went on a binge and we were left with the hangover. We were told that they knew what they were doing and to sit down and shut up. We're now currently enjoying the results. It was only when we ignored that admonition that we could slow the destruction. Something to consider in the upcoming decade.

Justice wins for once

The recent Supreme Court decision to uphold habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees is a rare victory for our civil rights. The problem, of course is that it never should have been an issue. Also, it just barely passed with a 5-4 majority. Given the fact that the majority judges are all over 68 years old and the dissenters were under 60 except for Scalia at 72. The next President will most likely pick at least one new SCOTUS judge.

McCain and Obama are polar opposites in this regard. Obama supports it and McCain is against it. Also, to use a familiar lightning rod, McCain wants a judge who will overturn Roe v. Wade and Obama does not. For the future of this country we can't afford a McCain presidency.

P.S. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) hates our rights so much he wants to amend the Constitution to overturn this ruling.

The death of satire

How can it survive when real life becomes so absurd? Last month I mentioned the Supreme Court decision to allow Indiana to force voters to show photo ID at the polls. This is what we end up with:

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said.

Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives. They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

Nuns. In wheelchairs. This country gets more ridiculous every day.

Still think we're free?

Today the Supreme Court reminded us (again) why putting a Democrat in the White House is important. They ruled today that Indiana could require voters to show photo ID to vote. This may not seem like a big deal at first glance, but it has a ripple effect. Several states have been watching this and now they have the green light.

The problem with this is that many voters do not have photo ID and would have difficulty getting it. That includes elderly people who have moved recently, poor people, students and people who have religious objections to have their picture taken. The biggest groups are students and poor people who tend to vote Democrat. Hmm. Sho' nuff, this case is Republican-driven. The Indiana Secretary of State said, "this says to the voter you can have confidence again in elections because we're doing some of the things the guy at the video store does when you go and rent a video." Sure. People shoplift videos all the time. How many votes have been stolen like this?

None. Zilch, zip, zero. Justice Stevens himself admitted, "The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occuring in Indiana at any time in its history." He had to go back 140 years to Boss Tweed in New York to find a case. This is part of the Republican "voter fraud" offensive that Alberto Gonzales put into place. Voter fraud is a myth. It doesn't happen. Voter disenfranchisement will now happen much more often.