« | »

Pelosi’s Task Force To Counter SCOTUS

Some rare above the waistline news from Zsa Zsa’s Huffington Post:

Pelosi Taps Task Force To Counter Supreme Court’s Citizens United Ruling

By Ryan Grim


House Democrats are forming a Citizens United task force to decide on the best set of legislative push back against the Supreme Court decision that upended 100 years of precedent and legalized unlimited corporate involvement in elections, Democratic members and aides told HuffPost.

As Justice Alito might say, “not true.” The Supreme Court’s decision did not upend 100 years of precedent. It overturned a ruling from 1990.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tapped as the head Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), her assistant and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – which has much to worry about when it comes to Citizens United.

That is to say, she tapped the people in charge of getting Democrats elected by hook or by crook. (Usually by the latter.)

The rump group pulls together all the relevant committee chairmen and selected members of those panels.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told HuffPost Wednesday he’s working with the group and plans to hold a committee vote in March, with the goal of getting legislation in place in time for the 2010 election cycle.

"I am determined to do the maximum that is constitutionally permissible in our power to regulate public corporations," he said, calling the 5-4, party-line Supreme Court opinion "the most radically activist act I can think of."

We were hitherto unaware that Congress could pass legislation to overturn the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Funny how that never seemed possible when people complained about previous court decisions, such as Roe v. Wade.

Members of Frank’s committee, including Reps. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), plan to meet with the chairman of the House Administration Committee, Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), as well as the chairmen and members of the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees.

Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and committee member Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) are members of the task force, as are Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.).

What a collection of Constitutional scholars this is.

The group will consider a variety of proposals that would be in line with the new law as written by the gang of five justices. The group will consider a steep tax on political spending, expanding disclosure requirements, and banning foreign corporations from participating in elections.

Of course foreign corporations are already banned from participating in our elections. But Democrats never let the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt.

(By the way, given Mr. Obama’s feigned outrage of foreigners participating in our elections, you would never know that his illegal alien Aunt Zeituni gave his campaign $260. Which is another reason she should be deported today.)

"It’s a high priority. I want the committee to be able to vote on this in March," said Frank. With Pelosi’s backing, it could move quickly to the floor.

"You can do shareholder vote," said Frank, meaning that it is constitutional for Congress to require that a corporation get the approval of its shareholders before it spends company money on elections. "To the extent that corporate decision making is involved, we will do the maximum."

Sure, the Constitution is very specific about how the federal government can tell corporations what to do when it comes to political free speech.

Grayson began introducing legislation to counter the Citizens United decision before it had been officially announced, including the "Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act," which would tax political expenditures at 500 percent.

Mr. Grayson is unhinged.

Citizens United allows corporations to spend money directly from their general treasury, meaning Goldman Sachs could decide to make a few billion less in loans and instead spend it electing members of Congress, which might be a much more lucrative investment. The kind of money that Goldman can find in its couch cushions could dramatically alter a House race if they decided to run ads against a particular candidate or set of candidates.

Lest we forget, Goldman Sachs was Mr. Obama’s second largest contributor, giving him $994,795 for his Presidential campaign. (Moreover, there were at least four other similar financial houses among Mr. Obama’s top donors: CitiGroup, JP Morgan, UBS AG, Morgan Stanley.)

Something Mr. Obama could have avoided if he had not broken his promise to partake of public campaign financing.

"With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century," said Grayson after the ruling. "Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding."

Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who knows a serious political threat when he sees one, has been working in the Senate to see what legislation could get the support of the 60 now needed to break a filibuster. Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) both expressed opposition to the decision, but whether they’ll help Democrats counter it is another question.

The Democrats are right to be afraid. Anything that helps free speech hurts them.

They fully realize that they can’t survive the truth coming out about their radical programs and their true agenda for America.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, February 4th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

19 Responses to “Pelosi’s Task Force To Counter SCOTUS”

  1. NoNeoCommies says:

    This just can’t be allowed!
    Only “good” money is allowed to skew the vote!
    Only people like George Soros are allowed to pour mega-millions into lawbreaking “non-profits” that engage in politicking.

  2. proreason says:

    Republicans, conservatives, Tea-partiers, businessmen, white people, Bush, oil, health insurance, profits, and now the Supreme Court.

    What would these people do without enemies.

    But note who isn’t an enemy: Iran, Hamas, Chavez, and Castro.

    You couldn’t make this stuff up.

  3. Helena says:

    “You can do shareholder vote,” said Frank, meaning that it is constitutional for Congress to require that a corporation get the approval of its shareholders before it spends company money on elections. “To the extent that corporate decision making is involved, we will do the maximum.”

    OK, Barney, how about UNIONS get the approval of their members before making political contributions??? Believe it or not – though unions give more to liberals than conservative candidates – not every union member is a liberal. And if they don’t poll their members, will their contributions get taxed to the max?

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”OK, Barney, how about UNIONS get the approval of their members before making political contributions???”…..

      ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!!!! We have a winner!!

  4. Right of the People says:

    Is it just me or does that picture look like the two guys behind her are wearing party hats?

    She is one scary looking [person]!

    • JohnMG says:

      One looks like a “Grand Kleagle” in the KKK………..and I’m not sure. but the other looks like a wanna be.

      As for Pelosi……I’ve never seen a stretch-limo broom.

    • U NO HOO says:

      Pelosi looks more and more like Margaret Hamilton.

  5. Yarddog1 says:

    At least Pelosibat was very efficient in choosing committee members based upon their abilities to break the law.

    Why aren’t Rangel and Frank in jail?

    The entire group should go to prison for defying the Supremes.

    We are witnessing unprecedented activity by a small group of total moonbats.

    I truly believe these people are mentally deranged.

    Can we file for commitment?

    • proreason says:

      Your and ROP’s post just above lit a light bulb for me.

      The whole libwit party is just a gathering of people who are getting even for what they think has been centuries of oppression.

      Pelosi is po’ed because when she was a young girl, women were mostly forced to work as clericals.
      The blacks are po’ed because they think they were and are discriminated against.
      The Drooler is po’ed because he’s a contemptable queer who can’t get a dog to do it with him.
      Franken and Shumer are po’ed because they are little Jewish guys.
      Waxmen is po’ed because he looks like an alien.
      Kerry is po’ed because nobody believes his lies about his heroism.

      The few that aren’t po’ed are ginning up the hatred in the others.

      It’s all about getting even.

      Rush has said that about Obamy for a year, but it applies to all of them.

      Angry, angry people.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Ahem ……… who here isn’t taught at the bits over this?
      When will they know or care that we people have a breaking point?


  6. eaglewingz08 says:

    Judge Clarence Thomas ripped Obama for using a Jim Crow law to lambaste the Supreme Court’s laudable decision in Citizens United case. Seems that Judge Thomas knows a tad more about US Constitutional law and US statutory laws than the super brilliant President.

    Justice Clarence Thomas is regularly attacked and denigrated by left-wingers who struggle with the notion that there can be an intelligent, educated black man who is capable of thinking for himself. Actually, I take that isn’t quite right. I really ought to have put the period after “man” or rather a black man can’t be intelligent if he doesn’t stay on the democrap plantation but frees himself by becoming conservative and/or republican. So expansive is Judge Thomas’ knowledge of the law, the Constitution, and the history of both that he can pull this obscure point out of his judicial robes to point out just how pernicious the impulse to allow government to censor speech really is.

    Judge Thomas added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a very dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907 (which is the 100 year old ‘precedent’ and laws which Obama referred to in his SOTU).

    “Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas
    said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South
    Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations,
    Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that
    there was a need to regulate them.”

    It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

    Yeah, that is right. Barack Obama stood before the people of the United States and praised legislation introduced by a fellow dixiecrap Democrap who preceded him in the US Senate; a Senator who was one of the most vile enemies of African-Americans to ever serve in the United States Senate. Tillman was a despicable man who owed his election to public office to his participation in an armed assault upon a unit of black soldiers during Reconstruction and participated in the lynching of several of these black soldiers. Tillman was a dangerous demagogue who was censured for his physical assault of another Senator on the floor of the US Senate and was barred from the White House over the incident.
    Yet our post racial President feels that Tillman’s Jim Crow law should remain hallowed in the halls of US Justice despite its pernicious birth and effects on free speech. Way to Go Barrie!

    • Liberals Demise says:

      “eye opener”

    • proreason says:

      oh eaglewing, you’re being too tough on the boy king.

      He isn’t siding with another racist from the other side of the aisle, he just doesn’t know about the precedent.

      You don’t think they expect Harvard Law School graduates to know that kind of stuff do you? They’re too busy boning up on marxist doctrine to have time for details that little people like Clarence Thomas can deal with.

  7. U NO HOO says:

    Thank you Clarence Thomas.

  8. DANEgerus says:

    The (D)emocrats, the party of Slavery, are defending the Tillman(D) Jim Crow legislation, named for Senator Benjamin Tillman(D) one of the most vile enemies of African-Americans to ever serve in the United States Senate, a despicable man who owed his election to public office to his participation in an armed assault upon a body of black soldiers during Reconstruction and the lynching of several of these soldiers, and a dangerous demagogue who was censured for his physical assault of another Senator on the floor of the US Senate and barred from the White House over the incident.

    The (D)emocrats are the party of Slavery…
    The (D)emocrats are the party of Segregation…
    The (D)emocrats are the party of the KKK…
    The (D)emocrats are the party of Jim Crow laws…

  9. canary says:

    Pelosi looks scary & violent. ‘snif’ She reminds me ‘snif’ of those 70’s horror movie. All she needs is a witches hat.

  10. rationalhumanbeing says:

    What is not being mentioned here is that the Tillman Act was passed in part not to protect Federal elections from the corporations, it was passed to protect the corporations from the politicians!

    That’s an oversimplification, but South Carolina’s Reconstruction Democrat Senator “Pitchfork” Tillman and his cronies thought (with very good reason — read and learn about Mark Hanna!) that Republicans William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt had bought the previous elections using “contributions” from the corporations (that actually were made by the corporations as a charge for staying in the political party’s favor).

    As Northwestern University Law Professor Robert Sitkoff wrote in a 2004 article, “Politics and the Business Corporation”: “Not surprisingly, corporate leaders embraced the Tillman Act for precisely that reason. One Republican State Committee member observed that corporate leaders were “entranced with happiness…. [T]hey are now in a position to toe us unceremoniously out of the door if we ask them for a penny…. They mean to take advantage of the laws forbidding them to give money for political purposes.”

    Indeed, consider this reaction of a “great financial authority” to the Senate’s passage of the statute, which was reported in a Times editorial entitled “Happy Corporations”: “[We] welcome… this legislation with very much the same emotions with which a serf would his liberation from a tyrannous autocrat.””

    Others were concerned that by using corporate funds to make political contributions, the corporate leaders were violating their commitment and obligation to their shareholders, which was to take the shareholders’ money in order to make the most money possible for the shareholders. Of course, like all other “campaign finance reform laws”, this was not comprehensive and was easily circumvented. Corporations gave their employees “bonuses” which were actually reimbursement for the employees’ “contributions” to a favored candidate.

    Today, a similar campaign funding practice is still in existence, which is why when you read the required campaign finance disclosures, you scratch your head in wonder at how people earning less than $20,000 a year are contributing $2,000 to a political candidate. It’s also why I grimace at the feigned outrage of politicans at this ruling — didn’t President Obama raise millions from corporations (through bundling of employee contributions)?

    According to opensecrets.org: Goldman Sachs $994,795; Microsoft Corp $833,617; Google Inc $803,436; Citigroup Inc $701,290; JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132; Time Warner $590,084; Sidley Austin LLP $588,598; National Amusements Inc $551,683; UBS AG $543,219; Wilmerhale Llp $542,618; Skadden, Arps et al $530,839; IBM Corp $528,822; Morgan Stanley $514,881; General Electric $499,130; Latham & Watkins $493,835. Similar with John McCain (Merrill Lynch $378,995; Citigroup Inc $331,666; Morgan Stanley $268,952; JPMorgan Chase & Co $230,757; Goldman Sachs $230,345).

    That’s how it’s done these days. And ask yourself: How many corporations in these lists got “bailout” money? It calls to mind the scene in the classic movie “Casablanca” in which Prefect of Police Louie orders Rick’s Cafe to be shut down because “I’m shocked … shocked to find out that there’s gambling going on in here!”, just as the croupier walks up to give Louie his winnings from the roulette table, which Louie takes with a “Thank you”.

    Rather than politicians limiting free speech by corporations or by anyone else, does it not make more sense to prohibit politicians and political parties from taking the money so that they are not beholding to the donors?

  11. Reality Bytes says:

    Is there an ordinance in DC as to how many flying monkeys you’re allowed to keep? Somebody should check this witche’s castle & see if there is any such law being broken.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »