I'm a bit late getting around to this, but back on January 21 the AP reported the remarks of Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer concerning the Citizens United decision. That decision has unleashed a flood of money into the political "process" during the Republican primaries and will continue to do so as we head into the general election later this year. Scalia was among the majority in the 5-4 decision. Breyer dissented.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia [left] has a simple solution for people who don't like all the political advertisements unleashed by the court's decision two years ago that ended limits on corporate contributions in political campaigns — change the channel or turn off the TV.
Scalia was asked about the decision during a presentation before the South Carolina Bar on Saturday, exactly two years after the court handed down the 5-4 decision in the case that led to the rise of Super PACs. They are outside groups affiliated with candidates that can take in unlimited contributions as long as they don't directly coordinate with the candidate.
"I don't care who is doing the speech — the more the merrier," Scalia said. "People are not stupid. If they don't like it, they'll shut it off."
The more the merrier. That's the spirit! Why shouldn't those with a million dollars to spend on buying candidates have more "speech" than those who have ten dollars to spend? As they do to everything else in the 21st century, the ironclad laws of supply and demand apply here as well.
Scalia said the blame for this type of system shouldn't fall on the Supreme Court, which he said decides merely whether the system is legal under the U.S. Constitution. Instead, he said the ones who have to change things are the politicians who created the system and the voters who often reward the candidates who spend the most money.
Well, we know for sure that the politicians are not going to change, which puts the onus on the voters, who are not stupid in Scalia's considered opinion. Regarding the stupidity of the voters, or lack thereof according to Scalia, see my post Ignorance Is Bliss. Stephen Breyer summed up the minority opinion of the court.
By nature, when a decision isn't unanimous, "somebody is making a mistake," Breyer said.
Breyer also briefly summarized both sides of the argument concentrating on his own.
"There are real problems when people want to spend lots of money on a candidate ... they'll drown out the people who don't have a lot of money," Breyer said.
I don't think it was "a mistake" as Breyers maintains, given the history of Supreme Court appointments.
We now turn to Bill Moyers, who is now so old that he can afford to throw all caution to the wind. He did that in America's billionaire-run democracy, which was co-written with Michael Winship. They are talking about the owners and manipulators of capital.
Whichever candidate wins the 2012 presidential election will have been bought and paid for by the 1 percent
Watching what’s happening to our democracy is like watching the cruise ship Costa Concordia founder and sink slowly into the sea off the coast of Italy, as the passengers, shorn of life vests, scramble for safety as best they can, while the captain trips and falls conveniently into a waiting life boat.
We are drowning here, with gaping holes torn into the hull of the ship of state from charges detonated by the owners and manipulators of capital. Their wealth has become a demonic force in politics. Nothing can stop them. Not the law, which has been written to accommodate them. Not scrutiny — they have no shame. Not a decent respect for the welfare of others — the people without means, their safety net shredded, left helpless before events beyond their control.
The obstacles facing the millennial generation didn’t just happen. Take an economy skewed to the top, low wages and missing jobs, predatory interest rates on college loans: these are politically engineered consequences of government of, by and for the 1 percent. So, too, is our tax code the product of money and politics, influence and favoritism, lobbyists and the laws they draft for rented politicians to enact.
Moyers and Winship continue by providing a lot of specific detail about how the 1% have subverted our Democracy. The details matter only if you care passionately about having specific people to blame and you continue to think against all the evidence and very long odds that Homo sapiens is still salvageable.
Surely it must break Moyers' heart to see the poisoned fruit of the money tree, and to watch so many people partake of that fruit. Now, I could say same as it ever was and end this post right here.
But let's be practical for a moment. Antonin Scalia's suggestion—we should turn off the TV—is entirely appropriate. We might consider reading a book instead. Or if you watch TV, mute the volume when the political ads come on. Or watch and listen to the ads, but remain conscious as you do so. Dissect them, taking them for what they are, which is another form of entertainment, another distraction from the constant worry about how you will pay your bills this month.
And when it comes time to vote, if you are willing to bestir yourself on that day, and you revel in making small futile gestures—
Bonus Video — How did I get here?
Wow...Moyers & Byrne...fantasic post Dave.
Bozo doesn't want to be president - he's already in charge.
Posted by: Diogenes | 02/15/2012 at 10:14 AM