My @Quora answer to How do conservatives view the decision of the Supreme Court case of Citizens United? http://www.quora.com/How-do-conservatives-view-the-decision-of-the-Supreme-Court-case-of-Citizens-United/answer/Kris-Rosvold-1?srid=X0qr&share=1
On the issue of courts interpreting law as in Citizens United I’m extremely conservative.
Now… before I get my shit jumped let me clarify what I mean by “conservative” and clarify that the REAL, historical, meaning of “conservative” has absolutely zero common ground with the #GrandioseObfuscatingPlutocrats of today’s Republican Party Brass. (Note carefully that I’m drawing a bright red line here between the Party Brass and the rank and file members of said party)
A true conservative is one who, first and foremost, seeks to “Protect Our Constitution from ALL enemies foreign and domestic.” Which is what the legally binding Oath of Office demands of every Public Official and member of the Military. Note that there is zero exceptions here or in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for politicians, Public Officials, or their corporate fascist bribers.
In theory protection of our Constitution will also protect our Nation as that foundation of Law is specifically designed to do two things:
Strictly limit government power over individual private Citizens (vs. Corporations)
Allow Citizens a path of legal recourse to reign in unwarranted (unapproved by Citizens via Ratification) government abuses of power. That legal recourse specifically INCLUDES Citizen protests in public spaces per the First Amendment.
Now, with that said I firmly believe that SCOTUS intentionally got this Citizen’s United decision dead wrong. Here’s why:
They did not recuse at least two members who had blatant, personal, profit based, unresolvable conflicts of interest.
They ignored well over 50 years of precedent in using political brinksmanship to overturn all effective limits on corporate campaign contributions.
They ignored the basic principles of fairness which indicate that in order to have an effective “one person, one vote” system; the financial playing field MUST BE REASONABLY LEVEL so that one person’s voice can NOT drown out the voices of thousands of Citizens.
They ignored the intent of our founding fathers to strictly limit the role corporations play in our politics.
They ignored the Fact that giving rights to Corporations simply gives an additional set of Rights to “speak” to only the very wealthy who control these corporations.
They ignored the fact that these rights are already vested individually and so to not give these right to corporations harms not one single person because those rights already vest with the individual.
They blatantly and intentionally evaded noticing that large “contributions” are, de facto, bribes even when the quid pro quo isn’t explicitly stated. (That is they ignored the velvet covered fist of “We’ll just give our money to your opponents next time.”)
They ignored over 200 years of history which shows us quite clearly that every time corporations are allowed unfettered access to policy-makers the Citizens, Nation, and Constitution suffer greatly. (Each of which the justices ARE LEGALLY sworn to protect).
Heres the kicker, and the trump card: They most carefully ignored the Fact that in the actual words of Our Constitution there is precisely ZERO mention or allowance for corporations and trusts participating in Our politics (which means that such things MUST be left to the States, or the Citizens).
They ignored the fact that the actual words of the Sherman Act, 18 USC 201, RICO, and the Clayton Act explicitly, and strictly, limit such use of corporate Bribery of Our Public Officials.
If you’re not absolutely outraged, you are not paying attention!