Current Article

Another Take On The Recent Supreme Court Decision

By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on January 26, 2010 at 1:00 PM in Campaigns & Campaign Financing, Current Affairs, Fund Raising, General Election, Supreme Court, U.S. Constitution

My friend from Hand Count Paper Ballots Now, Kathleen Wynne, recently wrote this fine piece, “How The American People Can Defeat Unlimited Corporate Money and Influence in Elections” with her colleague, Karen Renick. She was kind enough to allow me to reprint it here in its entirety below:

“There is a dangerous, misguided movement out there that if we just let business rule the nation, all will be well — markets will take care of themselves, health care, jobs, just let business handle it. You know who says that the loudest? Business.

And now, it can say it even louder. It can shout down any candidate who opposes it. What happened to ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’?” (Excerpt from “Big Biz Needed No Help In The Election Game”, by Mitch Albom, columnist, Detroit Free Press.)

The country is rightfully reeling from the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s partisan 5/4 decision this past Thursday ruling that the “government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.” This decision, without question, continues the devastation of the power of the people in the elections process by ruling that corporations are “persons” who have a First Amendment Right to make campaign contributions without any kind of restriction.

What average citizen can compete with the lobbyists who already have overwhelming influence on our representatives, as well as compete with the deep pocket campaign contributions of our fellow “persons”, Big Business? Campaigns have already become “marketing” campaigns designed to sell a brand or personality more than be a campaign of ideas among the candidates. The American people already know that unlimited ability by a corporation to make campaign contributions to a certain candidate will surely undermine the “checks and balances” that our Founders intended for the elections process which were meant to be the sovereign province of “we, the people”, not “we, the corporations.”

The initial devastation of the essential balance of power between citizens and big business at the ballot box was the advent of voting machines in the elections process. These machines make it impossible for any citizen to oversee the counting of their votes due to the hidden counting by the voting software that runs the machines. Secret vote counting combined with the Court’s most recent decision has rendered a citizen’s role in the elections process virtually non-existent, which is tantamount to not having an election at all. How is this good for democracy?
Not surprisingly, citizens of all political persuasions are already protesting the Court’s decision because they can so clearly see the impending danger to the People’s role in elections and understand that the kind of money that corporations will use now to influence elections will most assuredly diminish, if not totally destroy, our freedom and way of life. In stark contrast, it has been so incredibly difficult for citizens to readily grasp that our right to control and visually witness the entire process of voting to know for certain that the persons truly chosen by the people have been elected has been stolen from us by government officials who cleverly convinced us to replace the ballot box of old with the way of the future — computerized voting.

For years, election integrity advocates have compiled a mountain of evidence against the use of these machines to no avail. The voting machine corporations have spent large sums of money on lobbyists and marketing these machines and have far too much support from politicians, election officials, computer security experts and powerful interest groups intent on keeping these machines an integral part of our elections process. They are marketed as “faster, easier and more secure!” Is democracy preserved when voting is allowed to be marketed as “fast and easy” rather than “public and accurate”? Despite investigations that definitively uncovered the truth about the dangers these machines pose to election integrity, which were featured in the Emmy nominated HBO documentary film, Hacking Democracy, our government is determined to maintain the current status quo.

It is important to note that American election integrity advocates haven’t been the only ones protesting the use of electronic voting machines counting their votes in secret. Citizens of other democratic republics, such as, Ireland, The Netherlands and India, are but a few of the growing number of countries that have either banned e-voting or are presently fighting to ban them and demanding a return to hand counts and the kind of voting every citizen can oversee and understand. The most recent has been Germany.

In March 2009, Germany banned e-voting because two German citizens, Dr. Ulrich Wiesner and his father, Joachim Wiesner, filed a lawsuit declaring e-voting “unconstitutional” under the German Constitution (which, by the way, the final language put into their Constitution had to be approved by the U.S. after World War II). To further bolster their argument against e-voting, the Wiesners requested the help of a group of computer security experts, who were members of the Chaos Compute Club, to demonstrate for the Court technically how the voting system’s counting the votes was totally unobservable by the average citizen. In response to their lawsuit and the demonstration, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the Wiesners. The Court even took it a step further. They also ruled that no amount of testing or government checks of any kind, such as post election audits or recounts, can substitute for public observation. Ultimately, they unanimously declared that e-voting was, indeed, unconstitutional because computerized, secret vote counting does not subscribe to the democratic standards of their country! All elections in Germany have now reverted back to the use of hand-counted paper ballots.

In direct contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court’s priorities, the German Court’s priorities were to guarantee a German citizen’s human right, which in this case is to be able to “see” their votes counted without the need for any specialized technical expertise in order to do so. They did so to protect “principles of transparency” and the “public nature of elections” as the priority in how elections in a democratic republic must be administered. It is a great example of the German judiciary using its power the way it was intended by protecting the best interests of its citizens in one of the most important processes – elections – available to them in a democratic republic. Despite the historic nature of this decision, our mainstream media chose not to cover this story. Why not? You would think that the “greatest democracy in the world” would consider this decision by the highest court in Germany a must read by the American people, as well as by our own high court justices and government officials.

Yet, here in America, over 95% of us are forced to have a computerized voting system count our ballots because our government officials unilaterally sanctioned the control of our elections to the voting machine corporations through the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002 and have protected their software from public scrutiny by upholding trade secret laws. As a result, no one can guarantee even a single voter that his or her vote is being counted as cast.

What a disturbing and glaring difference between the German Federal Constitutional Court and our U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to asserting their power as intended — to protect a citizen’s rights above all others. The German Court banned secret vote counting in elections and the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporations unchecked influence in our elections, in alliance with our government’s sanctioning of even further corporate control over our elections through the continued use of these voting machines. One Court protects the best interests of the citizens and the sanctity of their basic human rights in a democracy, the other protects the best interests of corporations.

Therefore, the most effective and pro-active action we, the People, can take in the wake of this horrendous decision by our U.S. Supreme Court is to immediately demand a return to publicly hand-counted paper ballots at the precinct level on election night and to posting the results at the precinct – before any ballots are moved – so the results can be publicly documented by citizens which will protect the integrity of the final tally at local, state and federal levels. When all is said and done, this is the only avenue left for citizens to be able to reclaim their rightful role in the election process. It will ensure that our vote – our voice – will be accurately heard as we bestow our consent to those we deem worthy of serving as the protectors of our rights and freedom. Our collective wisdom will see through the ruse of the corporation-backed candidates and elect those who will have the strength and courage to strike down this giant of corporatocracy and revive our quickly fading republic.

If the majority of American citizens can understand that free speech, as exemplified by the giving of financial support to candidates running for public office, should only be for people, not corporations, then it’s truly not a difficult leap for these very same Americans to understand that voting should only be “for the People, of the People and by the People” too. In fact, they go hand-in-hand. The very instant that the counting is hidden from view inside a machine, then voting ceases to be a public endeavor and becomes the domain of those with the financial resources and special expertise to create, program and run the counting devices means that “they” – not the People – will determine the election outcomes. This is not a prescription for democracy, but, rather, one for tyranny.

Demand hand-counted paper ballots now and we can defeat unlimited corporate money and influence, and the corporate machines that now control our elections. And so my fellow Americans, let’s say it together in one voice – ELECTIONS ARE FOR PEOPLE – NOT CORPORATIONS!

Contact: Kathleen Wynne (Founder HCPBnow.org and Former Associate Director of Black Box Voting.org) and Karen Renick (Founder VoteRescue.org) at: wynnekathleen@yahoo.com and karen@voterescue.org to learn more about hand counted paper ballots.

Thank you so much for sharing your perspective with us, Kathleen. Certainly food for thought, especially on the eve of Obama’s first State of the Union address.

Thoughts?

creeper

R3A, I’m rethinking my opposition to this. Absent the real solution–public funding of campaigns–I’m beginning to think this may not be all that bad.

If we take the corporate money out of it, we’re relying on individual voters exclusively. We’ve learned the hard way that the electorate can easily go off the rails and hand us a Barack Obama.

Would the last election have turned out any differently if the stops had been off corporate contributions?

I’m not defending the SCOTUS ruling. It opens the door wide for international meddling in our elections. But after the last campaign I don’t have a heluva lot of faith in the electorate, either.

(signed)
Ambivalent
Hokma

I agree that we should have hand counted ballots. As soon as a government givesa contract to an electronic voting machine company then politics naturally kicks in. I am not sure how you do it efficiently.

On the Supreme Court ruling, the decision does not change anything. Instead of hiding behind PACs corporations will now be out in the open. You could make an argument that the messenger will now be more transparent than previously. Also understand that this does not just include corporations but also trade unions and organizations.

Also the legal nature of a corporation is based on regarding the entity as a person.

Also, I can make an argument that because of the Internet and blogs individuals like yourself now have as great a voice as a corporation in speaking about issues and you don’t have to pay for air time.
Jackie S

Having lived in other countries I believe that it is necessary for the USA to go back to paper ballots where we select our choice and we can count it in public. If a billion person democracy can do it we can.
Peggy Sue

I remain firm: this is a hideous ruling, even if legally correct. The last thing we need is to hand more power, more influence to multinational corporations. And sorry, as a human being, someone with an actual heartbeat, I’m profoundly offended to be equated to any or all artificial, rapacious entities. Or have my First Amendment rights extended to same. Nor do I have any desire to share my voting booth with Citizen Goldman Sachs or Citizen Exxon Oil.

Color me silly. I’m just sensitive that way.

Btw, I caught Kathleen’s essay. A good one to post, Amy.
Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

I understand your ambivalence, creeper, but honestly, I don’t think it is as easy as the electorate handed us Obama. There was a lot of collusion between the MSM, the DNC, and organizations like ACORN, SEIU, New Black Panthers, etc., etc., that worked in concert to get Obama the win. People publicly admitted to voting more than once, ACORN committed massive voter registration fraud, tens of thousands of the same people voted in both GA and FL, and on it goes.

All of that is to say, there was quite likely fraud in the last election, just like the two before it. Correcting those egregious wrongs will be made more difficult with the influence corporations will be able to wield…
Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

I hear what you are saying, but if the MSM continues to assist certain candidates, the possibility of those corporations being exposed for buying the candidates may easily be covered up…

Paper ballots are certainly a step forward, though, even if they sound like a step back. It is glaringly obvious that the electronic machines are not doing what they were deisgned to do – accurately convey the will of the people…
HARP

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman’s inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution “guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government”…. Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution.

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world.
Geoff Kucera

If corporations can be taxed, regulated, sued and held liable, then fairness dictates that corporations also have a say in the political process. Otherwise, a form ideological tyranny arises, not only against the corporations, but its officers, directors and employees.

This decision was not about corporations donating money to campaign coffers of a favored candidate, that already occurs. Obama reneged on his promise to accept public financing, when he realized that he could handily outspend McCain who did adhere to the tradition of using only public financing. Obama’s largest donors from publicly available information, were Google, Microsoft, Goldman-Sachs and TIme-Warner.

This decision was about a corporation, specifically a film production company, making a documentary about a candidate during the primary elections. Who the candidate was (it was Hillary) is not important to the decision and whether the documentary was a positive or negative portrayal of the candidate is not an issue either, for those are emotional and not legal issues.

The sole issue before the Supreme Court is can this production company spend its own money to produce and publicly disseminate a documentary of a candidate before an election. I see no reason why not under free speech grounds, and the ACLU wholeheartedly agreed as it filed an amicus brief in support of the free speech aspects of the case.

The lower court wrongly held that this documentary was an unlawful campaign contribution since it could not be reported by any candidate as a contribution to its coffers. That argument must fail for to whom should the money spent on production and dissemination be charged to? As the documentary held the candidate in less than a flattering light, the argument that this is an unregulated campaign contribution to any one candidate becomes even less tenuous.
Pingback: Another Take On The Recent Supreme Court Decision : NO QUARTER - The best HOT news! Blogs, Videos, News. - BEST News!
AM

“What happened to ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’?” you ask? Why nothing. It’s just that corporations have become the dominant people that government is by, for, and about.
betty

The only way to defeat the money interests is to change the game. If people in each congressional district banded together and pledged to vote for a randomly selected candidate picked from all those who pledged, it would be over for the money people.

The candidate, after election and relying on community support and enthusiasm, would have a great experience for two years and if we got powerful enough we could make a law that employers had to hold their job for them. And back home in the district, instead of a conspiracy of silence by representatives we would be advised of what is going on in the House and asked what our opinion is.

Just think of the fun you would have telling your representative what to do when he asks if he should allow Nancy Pelosi to insert a 2.5 million dollar budget item into a bill so that the habitat of field mice in SF can be studies, or Ted Stevens bridge, or Murpha’s private air port.

I don’t know if it would get as addicting as national sports but I bet it could come close.

I think it would be great fun and do us no harm either.
Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

Oh, great comment!
Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

Excellent comment, betty. I really like the thought of telling my rep., Jim Clyburn, just what I think of some of his pork projects and how he needs to can them…Yep – it won’t replace my beloved Yankees, but it sure as hell would be a lot of fun to watch!
The Jackal

The real danger for Americans is the foreign corporations that rest on American soil that will now be able to pick candidates of their choosing. If America is divided over a muslim sympathizer in the White House, how will they feel if an actual muslim should sit there? Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, etc. would love to see such a thing come to pass.
I’m a Linda too

Great post, thank you.

And, another bit of reality Dems have to deal with. Why have they become silent since Obama won the election about Computer voting?

Where is all the outrage they had when the Republicans were in the majority? Just another partisan game for them?

What happened to all those efforts THE PEOPLE WERE ASKING to have hand counted paper ballots? At minimum, a paper ballot for each vote. They never wanted to do anything about it. Pelosi stood by Holt as they tried to claim his bill would be the best they could do, but it still allowed ballotless computer voting and they suckered MoveOn in to misleading their email list to support it under the guise that this was a “paper ballot” bill.

Like this time with Dem’s, then, the people fought special interests , like MoveOn and others and the Dem Leadership in rejecting the Holt bill as it was and now…since they won? Silence. No longer interested.

…and side note RRRA… off track…but You’ve asked before, so I thought I would share. .I just received a call from my Doc’s. I just passed my 5 year Breast MRI with All clear. I’m officiall cured from my Breast Cancer! :D
I’m a Linda too

Great post, thank you.

And, another bit of reality Dems have to deal with. Why have they become silent since Obama won the election about Computer voting?

Where is all the outrage they had when the Republicans were in the majority? Just another partisan game for them?

What happened to all those efforts THE PEOPLE WERE ASKING to have hand counted paper ballots? At minimum, a paper ballot for each vote. They never wanted to do anything about it. Pelosi stood by Holt as they tried to claim his bill would be the best they could do, but it still allowed ballotless computer voting and they suckered MoveOn in to misleading their email list to support it under the guise that this was a “paper ballot” bill.

Like this time with Dem’s, then, the people fought special interests , like MoveOn and others and the Dem Leadership in rejecting the Holt bill as it was and now…since they won? Silence. No longer interested.

…and side note RRRA… off track…but You’ve asked before, so I thought I would share. .I just received a call from my Doc’s. I just passed my 5 year Breast MRI with All clear. I’m officiall ycured from my Breast Cancer!

CHEERS!
Sassy

That’s great news!
You are a winner!
Sassy

I have a question if jbjd or another of our brightest come on this thread.
Is it true that at least 26 or 28 states had already relaxed their regulations on the issue of corporate donations?
I heard only a portion of the discussion, but Oregon was mentioned, and the idea that elections were adversely affected was scoffed at.
I’m a Linda too

THANK YOU!
Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

YAY!!!!!! Excellent news!! That is fantastic! Here’s to many, many more years of “All Clear”, IALT!
EllenD

Why don’t we see how other countries count their ballots? Why is it considered anti-American to lift successful ideas from other countries? We have done it clandestinely for years (how to forge cannons so they don’t blow apart is one). It is silly and hypocritical to pretend we can only follow ideas that are “American”.
EllenD

As the documentary held the candidate in less than a flattering light, the argument that this is an unregulated campaign contribution to any one candidate becomes even less tenuous.

Obviously it is an unregulated campaign contribution to the opponents of the candidate being portrayed harshly. And what about the cost of the air time – a not inconsiderable expense.

I own and operate several corporations and they are not the same as me as an individual.
People incorporate so they aren’t held personally liable for what the corporation does.Personally, I can go to jail but unless you can pierce the corporate veil, I’m pretty safe inside the corporation. And the corporation can’t go to jail.
Corporations can move large amounts of money easier. There are any number of advantages corporations have. They didn’t need this.
Kathleen Wynne

creeper,

I urge you to watch the documentary “Hacking Democracy” before you decide people are the problem! If you don’t trust corporations to do the right thing about campaign contributions, then how can you trust voting machines made by corporations?

The biggest fraud perpetrated upon the American people is “voter fraud”. It’s “election fraud” that has been disenfranchising the American people. Fraud perpetrated by those in power who want to make certain that the people don’t have the ability to decide who represents them and who doesn’t.

The only power citizens have is their vote and to leave that up to the corporations to control is like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house. It doesn’t make sense! I’ll trust the American people before I’ll trust corporations who develop voting systems that count the vote in secret and they tell you at the end of the day who won.
EllenD

Congratulations!
connie

I think this decision by the supremes is going to turn out to be a nightmare. Just think if this film company can make and release a film on the best candidate we had in 2008, how will we ever get a really good candidate again.

If the right wing wants films made by the lefties about religious zealots, then I guess it can go back and forth and the public will just become more divided.

Just think if we could have raised enough money to investigate all of Obama’s dealing in Chicago and pre Chicago and release it to movie theatre’s before the election, we maybe could have got him out, it will never compare to what a corporation can make.
Kathleen Wynne

EllenD,

I recently contacted the German citizen, Dr. Ulrich Wiesner, who filed the lawsuit against electronic voting in Germany. Each country has different procedures for counting votes and different kinds of ballots than we have in the States.

The core problem is the “secrecy” involved in the counting of the votes, which totally opens the door to fraud by those in power. It’s human nature.

Many counties in Texas still count the vote by hand. The issue isn’t “how” it’s done, we were doing it for hundreds of years until they complicated the entire counting process, shrouding it in secrecy and incrementally taking citizens out of the most important process available to them in a democracy — ELECTIONS.

The problem is that the powers that be don’t have the “political will” to return to hand counts because a properly administered hand count makes it almost impossible for them to manipulate the outcome. It’s much easier with the machines.

Elections have become not the voice of the people any longer, but rather, the political party who cheats the best, wins!

Is that any way to run a democracy?
Guest

What do you think a Dem organization is going to do to Sarah Palin? They’ll lie and make all kinds of scandalous claims and run it 24/7. The supremes screwed the pooch on this one.
jbjd

EllenS, in the lower court ruling, Citizens had argued unsuccessfully, it did not violate existing limits on such spending (limits now overturned by the SCOTUS) because the ‘film’ was to be distributed via cable t.v., which is a subscription service, meaning that, people invited the speech, as opposed to having it foisted on them, like it or not.
Kathleen Wynne

Thanks so much, Amy, for posting Karen’s and my article. It’s greatly appreciated. We know that election integrity is not the prominent issue on most people’s minds these days and I totally understand. I’ve been out of work for almost a year now and I need to find gainful employment soon. Perhaps, I’ll find one of those jobs the obama administration “saved”.

I urge every one to please take a moment and think about what the article is trying to say. Think about it, when the former Nazi Germany recognizes the absolute necessity for every citizen to be able to “see” their votes counted in order to protect the foundations of a democratic society where the people are the true stewards of the government, then why hasn’t America recognized this important fact?

We all talk about, “we, the people”, but when it comes to the subject of our elections, far too many Americans’ eyes still glaze over because we just can’t wrap our collective heads around the concept that it is “elections” that make a democracy. Anything less than real transparency and public counting of the votes, is a dog and pony show to appease the people.

The Tea Party movement is a direct symtom of the average citizen’s loss of power to affect change in their government. We aren’t being listened to because far too many of those in power were not elected by the people, they were chosen by those who control the machines.

If we want the cure to all the problems that are facing us today, then we must take a moment out of our day to learn more about the truth about our elections and what’s wrong with them.

Please visit election reform sites such as: VoteRescue.org; BlackBoxVoting.org; DemocracyforNewHampshire.com; CenterForPaperBallots.org and please watch the documentary film “Hacking Democracy”. This will give you an idea of just how hard some of your fellow citizens have been working to get the truth to our fellow citizens.

Election reform is not a hobby or a pet issue. It’s about the life’s blood of our democracy — open, transparent, public elections, where every citizen who wants can see their votes being counted out in the public and the results posted so that they can be documented by citizens, candidates and election officials alike.

Now that’s what democracy looks like.
jbjd

Sassy, could you please be more specific? (Generally speaking, the term “regulations” applies to the procedures and standards drafted by state and federal agencies and departments to carry out the statutes and codes enacted by legislatures. So, I am not sure whether you are talking about the SoS relaxing rules promulgated from that office or, new legislation.)
jbjd

R3A, thank you for publicizing the work of KW and associates. (I often refer people to her site.) One of the reasons I sacrifice so much time and energy to foment citizen activism in order to resolve the issues of election fraud (viz-a-viz getting BO’s name on the ballot in applicable states) is this. Fraud can occur at so many stages in the electoral process. But I strongly believe, if would be perpetrators were assured, whatever they try will be met by an army of informed voters scrutinizing their every move and holding them accountable then, this fear of swift and certain consequences can mitigate such shenanigans, in whatever form. Like I have said, if we cannot rise up collectively to compel enforcement by our public officials, of existing laws then, what difference does it make to create new laws, or elect new public officials?
AC

Kathleen,

I appreciate the work you and Karen are doing for all of us.
AC

Kathleen,

I appreciate the work you and Karen are doing for us all.
AC

Kathleen,

I appreciate the work you and Karen are doing for us all.

Thank you also jbjd.
jbjd

IALT, happy, happy!
Kathleen Wynne

LindaToo,

First, I’m so happy to hear about your good news about being “officially cured from Breast cancer”!

Second, you’re post is spot on with regard to the dems being silent about the reported fraud perpetrated during the caucus process. I have been arguing about this phenomenon to the election integrity community as well.

You see, after the 2000 presidential election, when Al Gore lost to GW (and let me tell you a bit of truth that has been kept from the general public — it was an optical scan machine that counted 16,022 votes “backwards”, which almost caused Gore to concede prematurely, not the hanging chads! It has been proven that the optical scan machine cannot count backwards, UNLESS IT WAS
PROGRAMMED TO DO SO. And then, of course, we all remember our beloved Supreme Court stopping the count by hand (notice they didn’t want a hand count!). It was soon after this horribly questionable election that the election integrity movement came to life and it was filled with democrats furious at how that election played out.

After 2000, by design, the party leaders pushed hard to put the onus on the “hanging chad”, so that they could pass legislation that would get rid of the punch card machines and roll in the computerized voting machines, which included the software that counts the votes in secret, making it impossible to know whether your vote was counted
as cast or not. You totally have to trust the machines.

After the 2004 presidential election, when Kerry folded like a deck chair and conceded before all the votes had been counted, the election integrity movement grew.

After obama was “chosen”, those who supported him were no longer interested in “rocking the boat” and questioning the legitimacy of his election.

I was furious! Election integrity must be non-partisan. It’s the only way to achieve election integrity.
Geoff Kucera

Let me pose a hypothetical. In a heated campaign, days before an election, a candidate backed by labor union money begins to attack a corporation with a non-unionized labor workforce by raising allegations that this corporation mistreats and under compensates its workers. In fact this corporation compensates its labor workforce with better salary and benefits than its unionized competitors and has steadily increased employment of its labor workforce over the past five years whereas its unionized competitors had to shed employees through downsizing.

The corporation produces and pays for a a series of media print and broadcast ads attacking this candidate’s false allegations with testimony from members of its own labor workforce and an inference that this candidate and the unions seek only to pressure its workforce to unionize so that the union can cash in on the productivity and growth of this corporation. The series of ads produced and paid for by the corporation does not refer directly or indirectly to any opposing candidate nor refer to any political party.

The candidate’s campaign organization brings a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief against the dissemination of these ads produced and paid for by the corporation as being campaign contributions of potential benefit to his opposing candidate exceeding the spending limit should this corporation had made these ads directly for the benefit of the opposing candidate. Under you reasoning, this injunction should be granted denying this corporation the opportunity to defend its record in a public venue against false and misleading statements raised against it by this candidate, thereby limiting the information available to the voting public from which an informed decision regarding this candidate may be made.
creeper

These days I don’t trust anybody…least of all kool-aid-swilling voters. As for election fraud, I saw it at my own caucus where Dems happily swallowed the “assistance” of the out-of-state Obama operative.

I’ll keep pushing for public funding. It’s the only answer.
creeper

Wondeful news, IaLt. May that report be only the first of many.
AC

I’d like to pose a question. If a corporation either supports or opposes a candidate for office will the expenses incurred be tax deductible. In other words it it a usual business expense.

Just asking. If anyone might offer an answer.
AC

Jackal, you should have stopped at the first sentence–I certainly agree with that.
Sassy

jbjd, I’m really unsure about specifics, but the discussion seemed to be about running ads right up until the election, as opposed to a prescribed cut-off date.
With regard to Oregon, the guests noted that as a liberal state, there had been no excessive spending even before the last ruling from the Supreme Court.
Sorry to be so obtuse!
oowawa

Hey Linda–You look like you have a good time all of the time!
mountainaires

We can solve the problem of money influences corrupting our Republic if we had publicly financed elections. People don’t want it; they think it will cost them more money. But if we don’t do it, we’re never going to have power “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Where I vote, we have computerized vote counting, and a paper ballot that corresponds to our vote. At least if there is a question, we can account for discrepancies. My biggest complaint is we can’t do “write-in votes” so our freedom of speech is limited.

Thanks RRRA and Kathleen. Great discussion, information!
oowawa

Hey Linda, Congratulations!–You look like you will have a good time all of the time!
Patience

Call me paranoid but I always vote absentee (guarantees a paper ballot) AND I even personally deliver it to my local Board of Elections.
Patience

Great news Linda — congrats!
jbjd

That language is from the Gettysburg Address. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp
Kathleen Wynne

creepers,

do you really believe the voters were the one’s who put obama in office?
I’m a Linda too

Thank you and your account is spot on. And no one would stand up on tn the Senate floor to contest the vote for Gore. The silence on this is deafening . Now all is ok with Dem leadership with these machines, huh?
I’m a Linda too

Thank you ALL for the good wishes and congrats. I promise, my delay in responding is not because I’m sauced.

Believe it or not…I actually went out shopping to buy tofu. I’m so weird, I know. But I’m not allowed to eat soy anymore, because it has naturally occuring Estrogen, but I told myself on this day, I was actually going to celebrate with Fried Tofu. lol I had to go buy some. Don’t I lead the exciting life? lol

Again, thank you all so much. I feel like I can actually plan again instead of taking the wait and see approach.
Kathleen Wynne

jbjd,

Many thanks for the referrals! Public oversight by citizens is the ONLY way to prevent fraud on the scale it is now on because of the secrecy.

The German Court recognized immediately that without citizen oversight (which cannot be achieved with the voting machines, period), we can never prevent fraud that totally disenfranches the citizens.

The goverment has been very successful in convincting the Americann people that they are the “criminals” and, therefore, should be prevented from seeing their votes counted, because the machines can be trusted but people cannot.

Amazing, the American people immediately recognized that corporations aren’t persons; however, when it comes to elections, it’s the people who can’t be trusted but the machines made by corporations can be trusted.

Why the disconnect?
Kathleen Wynne

AC,

Thank you for your appreciation. However, I’ll say it once and I’ll say it again…just like the citizens who participate in the Tea Parties, it’s going to take the same kind of citizen passion, participation and commitment that they have, if we want to take back our elections.

We hope that the leaders of the Tea Party movement will recognize that they and the election integrity movement have a great deal in common and should join forces!

Now that would be a sight to behold and a force to be reckoned with — Americans of all political persuasions and walks of life uniting to save their democracy.

If we could do that, I just know the Founders would be proud.
Kathleen Wynne

Patience,

They count your absentee vote with the machine! Also, there is no chain of custody to track whether your vote was even counted or not! Like jbjd says, there are so many ways to manipulate the final vote count.

The only way to change that is to count the votes at the precinct, not moving the ballot box to another location, on election night, overseen by citizens and party leaders, and posting the results so that the citizens can document the final count in that precinct.

You know the saying, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Unfortunately, even the cures that are available are not sufficient to offset cheating.
J.J. (The Puma)

The Supreme Court did not kill Campaign Finance Reform. They just sprinkled a little holy water over the remains and said a few prayers. Campaign Finance Reform actually died 18 months ago after it was mugged by Barack Obama and left by the side of the road.

Make no mistake about it. This Supreme Court decision is not party-neutral in its implications. Corporations will spend vast fortunes to get rid of politicians who do not represent their interests. This is a huge blow to the Democrats (except those who sell out). But, the Democrats deserve a good ass kicking or two as a result of Obama abandoning public financing in 2008. Maybe I’ll work up my outrage sometime after Obama, and the people who supported him, are long out of office.

“Karma is a bitch”.
Patience

It seems to me corporations donate to whomever they perceive to have the best chance of winning, and often hedge their bets, regardless of party affiliation.
Patience

Thanks for the info Kathleen!
Allison

Amazing. <a href=”
http://www.gochristianlouboutin.com/index.html

” title=”gochristian shoes”>gochristian shoes</a>
ghj

Avatar is a 2009 American science fiction film written and directed by James Cameron. The epic is set in the year 2154 on Pandora, a fictional Earth-like moon in a distant planetary system. Humans are engaged in mining Pandora’s reserves of a precious mineral, while the Na’vi the sapient and sentient race of humanoids indigenous to the moon,resist the colonists’ expansion, which threatens the continued existence of the Na’vi and the Pandoran ecosystem..www.ghdhairon.com for Shopping CHI&GHD Hair Styler OnlineThe film was released in traditional 2-D and 3-D, as well as IMAX 3D formats. Avatar is officially budgeted at $237 million;other estimates put the cost at $280,310 million to produce and an estimated $150 million for marketingThe film is being touted as a breakthrough in terms of filmmaking technology, for its development of 3D viewing and stereoscopic filmmaking with cameras that were specially designed for the film’s production. http://www.ghdhairon.com/
ghj

we are Professional? with the highest quality service.on-line manufacturer supplies that wholesales all kinds ghd hair straighteners ,GHD Hair Straightener is the world’s famous brands and chi hair straighteners. Our CHI FLAT IRON,To give consumers convenient,at the same time care of everyone’s hair.CHI hair straightener,?Its use is very simple,in case of leakage will automatically power off to protection of everyone’s personal safety.GHD straighteners are popular all over the world with high quality, ?When the temperature reaches a maximum,it will not stop flashing the lights, reminding everyone.competitive price,In addition, the design was very nice, very lightweight.fast delivery.Dry autumn, is the hair of the most vulnerable physiological periods.shop online for genuine & authentic hair straingtener,Welcome to visite our website. http://www.hairupstyler.com
Tom Degan

Are corporations really persons?

Do corporations think?

Do corporations weep?

Do corporations fall in love?

Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?

Do corporations have loved ones?

Are corporations even capable of loving?

Do corporations sometimes lose sleep at night worrying about disease, violence, destruction, and the suffering of their fellow human beings?

Do corporations feel your pain?

Can a corporation run for public office?

Is a corporation capable of having a sense of humor? Is it capable of laughing at itself? (EXAMPLE: “So these two corporations walk into a bar….”)

If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: “It”)

Has a corporation ever walked into a voting booth and cast a ballot for the candidate of its choice?

We all know that corporations have made an ocean of cash throughout our history by profiting on the unspeakable tragedy of war. But has a corporation ever given its life for its country?

Is a corporation capable of raising a child?

Does a corporation have a conscience? Does it feel remorse after it has done something really bad?

Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?

Has a corporation ever written a novel or a dramatic play or a song that inspired millions?

Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?

Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or a Tony? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or a Polk or Peabody Award? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?

Has a corporation ever performed Schubert’s Ave Maria?

Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?

Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising on the horizon?

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?

Should corporations kiss on the first date?

Could a corporation resolve to dedicate its life to being an artist? Or a musician? Or an opera singer? Or a Catholic priest? Or a Doctor? Or a Dentist? Or a sheet metal worker? Or a gourmet chef? Or a short-order cook? Or a magician? Or a nurse? Or a trapeze artist? Or an author? Or an editor? Or a Thrift Shop owner? Or a EMT worker? Or a book binder? Or a Hardware Store clerk? Or a funeral director? Or a sanitation worker? Or an actor? Or a comedian? Or a glass blower? Or a chamber maid? Or a film director? Or a newspaper reporter? Or a deep sea fisherman? Or a farmer? Or a piano tuner? Or a jeweler? Or a janitor? Or a nun? Or a Trappist Monk? Or a poet? Or a pilgrim? Or a bar tender? Or a used car salesman? Or a brick layer? Or a mayor? Or a soothsayer? Or a Hall-of-Fame football player? Or a soldier? Or a sailor? Or a butcher? Or a baker? Or a candlestick maker?

Could a corporation choose to opt out of all the above and merely become a bum? Living life on the road, hopping freight trains and roasting mickeys in the woods?

I realize that this is pure theological speculation on my part but the question is just screaming to be posed: When corporations die, do they go to Heaven?

Our lives – yours and mine – have more worth than any goddamned corporation. To say that the Supreme Court made a awful decision on Thursday is an understatement. Not only is it an obscene ruling, it is an insult to our humanity.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY