Obama's Rebuke to Supreme Court Decision

The January 2010 ruling by five of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission created outrage for opening the election process to the corrupti9on influence of corporations−some controlled by foreign interests−and continuing or expanding on the years of corporate abuses of consumers and citizens, such as in the housing, credit card, bank, and other abuses.

In a New York Times editorial (January 22,, 2010), the title, "The Court's Blow to Democracy," was followed by a blistering opinion, part of which follows:

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. 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. Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

As a result of Thursday's ruling, corporations has been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We'll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The Constitution they wrote mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections−the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations.

In 1907, as corporations reached new heights of wealth and power, Congress made its views of the relationship between corporations and campaigning clear: It banned them from contributing to candidates. At mid-century, it enacted the broader ban on spending that was repeatedly  reaffirmed over the decades until it was struck down on Thursday.

The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the ruling not only threatens democracy but "will, I fear do damage to this institution."

The Citizens United ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-to-4 decision, the court's conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted he political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.

History of Corrupt Supreme Court Justices
And Ties to National Calamities

Thanks to the culture of cover-ups of high-level corruption, the American public knows very little if anything about the history of corruption involving Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. A good start would be to understand the roles played by Justices of the Supreme Court in a long series of corrupt activities, aviation disasters, and a series of terrorist attacks, and especially the role of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the majority.

• Index to files relating to conduct of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.  files relating to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Justice Anthony Kennedy history of cover-ups of criminal activities and resulting national tragedies.

• Index to 9/11 files.

• Enablers to 9/11 disasters.