An Open Letter To Chief Justice Roberts
Jan 22nd, 2010 | 85 responses
To: Chief Justice John Roberts
Re: Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission
Dear John,
I am a voter who takes his citizenship seriously. I am not a rich man. I have volunteered my time as an unpaid volunteer to work for various political causes and candidates. In your majority ruling Thursday, you reaffirm that corporations have the same rights as individuals.
You go on to rule that corporations are free to contribute as much money as they want to federal political races in support or against a candidate before an election. You call it a First Amendment issue.
Sir, I humbly suggest I am not equal to Exxon in terms of buying ad space for a candidate for the House of Representatives. Even if I secured a $1 donation from a million friends just like me would we be equal to match a Big Oil corporation fighting new energy regulations, for example.
May I remind you, sir, your majority decision overturned about 100 years of precedent limiting the wealth of large corporations influencing the outcome of elections. Specifically, during your Senate confirmation hearing in 2005 you stated your judicial belief as a strict constitutional constructionist and valued legal precedents as the holy grail of the law:
“Judges are like umpires,” you said back then. “Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire… I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”
Again, may I humbly suggest, sir, you swung for the fences in Citizens United. You and your majority justices took a narrow issue from the political “documentary” of then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and changed the entire complexion of campaign financing laws.
Sir, allow me to refer you to Friday’s New York Times article in which your good friend Benjamin L. Ginsberg is quoted:
“It will put on steroids the trend that outside groups are increasingly dominating campaigns,” Mr. Ginsberg said. “Candidates lose control of their message. Some of these guys lose control of their whole personalities.”
“Parties will sort of shrink in the relative importance of things,” he added, “and outside groups will take over more of the functions — advertising support, get out the vote — that (political) parties do now.”
And, from one of your inquisitors during your Senate confirmation hearing, New York Sen. Charles Schumer:
“The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November’s elections. It won’t be Republicans. It won’t be Democrats. It will be corporate America.”
Mr. Chief Justice, even Republican operatives have raised eyebrows from your ruling.
“I don’t believe that the ruling will fundamentally change the outcome of the elections given the obscene amounts of money that was spent independently in the last two years by everyone,” said Jim Innocenzi, a GOP strategist in Alexandria, Va. “You could argue that since everyone has figured out a way to get around the rules, we’d be better off with full disclosures of who is really paying for this stuff and let everyone just promote whatever cause they want.”
“There is only so much advertising space available the last 30 to 60 days [before an election] anyway, so all the ruling does is jack up the cost of 30-second commercials at the end of the campaign,” he said.
In all due respect, sir, I don’t think your ruling will change democracy as we now know it as some of your critics are claiming.
Certainly, I would never dream of calling your decision the worst since Roger B. Taney who was chief justice in 1857 and wrote the Dred Scott decision.
Nor would I even hint that your ruling was an advert case of judicial activism in defense of First Amendment rights.
Come to think of it, you five men certainly contributed your fair share of improving one of our economic sector’s downsides which is the lack of advertising revenue for newspapers, television and political websites. I read that $2.6 billion was spent during the 2008 presidential campaign. Potentially, you guys have raised that ceiling immeasurably. Ah, unintended consequences.
In closing, I have one tiny question for you, sir.
What makes me equal to Rex Tillerson, chairman of the board and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp.? Of course we each have one vote. It’s what each can do before the vote that diminishes my value compared to his. That, sir, is not fair.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jerry K. Remmers
85 Responses to “An Open Letter To Chief Justice Roberts”
Maybe you should write this letter to America.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees…
Surely corporations have a right to speech. I just believe it should be out in the open.
Actually by some of the logic here I suggest that we need to consider taking about the rights of government workers. It seems they get to have a lot to say about my money and future with an obvious conflict of interest.
Here's how an individual can be charged with discrimination against a corporation –
Straight out of the Fair Housing Act:
(d) “Person” includes one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under title 11 [of the United States Code], receivers, and fiduciaries.
…
As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful–
(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/title8.php
I can't believe there are folks trying to argue that it's ok to discriminate against minority corporations just to avoid conceding that persons can maintain their rights when functioning as a group.
This is obviously a very emotional issue to some folks.
DaMav, what if it turns out that most of money going into campaigns comes from liberal companies that want the government to clean up their messes and take care of their employee's health care so that they don't have to. Are you still going to be singing the praises of this decision then?
tidbits, I read a fair number of your posts and respect your opinion and sincerity. I'm easy with agreeing to disagree on this one, and probably some others. Thanks for your responses.
Agreed, DaMav. I also regularly read your comments and respect your intellect and committment to principle, noting that we sometimes agree and sometimes not.
Absolutely.
I was vocally opposed to the FEC considering a forced delay in the release of Michael Moore's movie around the time of the 2004 election, for example.
DaMav
“Here's how an individual can be charged with discrimination against a corporation “
Reread my comment:
Additionally, please explain to me how I am legally discriminating against a women if it doesn't involve some form of economic trade?
My freedom of speech allows me to say practically anything about another person.
Quoting word for word of a statute that in no way addreesses my comment is not addressing my comment.
Now, one more time, explain to me why a corporation gets its right to speak only through steeling money from shareholders. If the CEO took corporate money for his personal furnishings, I have recourse. Under this ruling, if the CEO wants to amplify his views though corporate money, I have no recourse. Speech through theft is not covered by the Constitution.
What law will you point to that defends your assertions?
What law will you point to that defends your assertions?
The First Amendment to the Constitution supports my assertions, as recently affirmed by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
—
Withholding an economic trade is explicitly covered in the section of the act I posted, i.e. ” to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of…”
—
As to your repeated assertion that the CEO is stealing from you by speaking out for or against a candidate or issue, I will simply say I disagree. I've tried to explain my opinion, and you are obviously free to reject my explanation and vice versa. Thank you for the exchange of views.
Sen. Jack S. Phogbound: I'll bet you were wondering what I've been doing up there in Washington, D.C. these past eighteen years.
Mammy Yoakum: We didn't care, as long as you was there and we was here!
Only the gumint, can kill a corporation, think Lehman. They can also breath life into a corporate corpse (think GMAM).
But do humans lose their rights when they join a group?”
No. They still have their rights. It's the corps that are getting an unfair advantage (unions too) with this ruling. It's not the noise, it's the volume and it impinges on my rights if I have no way to avoid it. (Think of instead of Budweiser (bad example) ads replaced by Palin ads every 5 minutes during the 2011 Super Bowl-Giants and Jets). Now if we can get our local communities to limit the campaigning both in time and frequency, just like they limit boomboxes and noisy construction I might go along with the Supremes.
Here's how an individual can be charged with discrimination against a corporation – “
Ata boy. Quit now.
Mammy Yoakum: I has spoken.
Damn, Duck, we be nigh in agreement on this y'here issue.
Best,
Pogo
Limiting free speech of corporations is not a blow to the Bill of Rights. Quite the opposite actually. There is nothing in the constitution that limits free speech of ANYONE, being it an individual or corporation. McCain-Feingold is free speech limiting legislation and deserves richly to be declared unconstitutional.
Damn, Duck, we be nigh in agreement on this y'here issue.'
Agree on Pogo, it's a start.
Duck,
Let's not get carried away. Anyone who thinks the Giants & Jets are going to be matched in the 2011 Super Bowl needs to get the snot out of his brain.
Go Pack '11. But the SC is still intruding on individual rights with this one.
hmmm. Perhaps you misread one of my comments? I've nearly been burned at the stake by rampaging hordes of 'moderate' statists for the past two days here.
yep, my comment says “a blow for the Bill of Rights”. We're on the same side. Perhaps you are the cavalry I've been dreaming about? lol
Go Pack '11. But the SC is still intruding on individual rights with this one.”
Please give me some credit for my prognostication skills (not legal term), but I was one of the ones saying HCR would bomb.
-Giants 27, Jets 12.
-SC over reached just like POTUS on reforms (must be catching).
- Palin will do a center fold for The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
-Hilary switches parties to save nation after dumping Bill, Justice Ginsburg applauds.
_ Wife tells me to get off the F_____ computer.
I knew someone with a Franklin computer…
Sound of frying pan on my F_____ head.
My first thoughts exactly.
And how many decades did that take?
Question tidbits: is there a workaround. Can congress limit its campaign contributions to natural people? Can it tax corporations 1000% for campaign donations and political advertising? This sort of stuff is being used against us, can it be used for us instead?
With current SC and this decision, hard to know how much they will allow legislature to do. Plus, congress already under the thumb of big money. What is possible and what is realistic may be different calculations. Congress certainly retains taxing authority, e.g. But will they use it or will SC overturn it as unconstitutional abridgement of free speech.
This is an extremely activist decision. How far will they extend it? Not sure, but it is frightening.
You mean like this?:
Wall Street's $26m lobbyists gear up to fight Obama banks reform
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/24/…
Well, Prof, lobbyists are already a problem, and Obama has shown a consistent willingness to play their game. One of the reasons I'm not a big Obama fan. The decision of the court, and what it portends for the future, increases rather than limits big money influence.
Wish I could be more optimistic, but increasing corporate, special interest, influence, bordering on legal blackmail or extortion (give us what we want or we'll drop millions to defeat you) does not bode well for a vibrant democracy. My opinion.
And how many decades did that take?
My recollection is it was only a couple years after we started twisting the financial screws.
For more down-to-earth examples of corporate accountability, though, check out the fairly routine shareholder lawsuits when shareholders feel managers have betrayed their interests. For example, Yahoo declined Microsoft's offer a couple years ago, and the lawsuits were swift.
If you think standards of accountability between the public and private sectors are lopsided, you're right. Try suing Barney Frank or Dick Cheney for failing voters.
Apologies to Al Capp, Mamie is from l'l Abner, not POGO.
Disinvestment from South Africa
It took over twenty years and Government intervention to get Corporate America to start turning the screws…
The voters can always vote them out of Office, and are given the opportunity to do so every two or four years…
The elevation of the Supreme Court to its present position of judicial dictatorship was accomplished by two-party politics, first in the years before the Civil War, culminating in the Dred Scott decision under the Whigs and Democrats, and more recently under 160 years of Republican and Democratic Party corruption, resulting in extremes of European political interpretation being imposed as law in the United States. What needs to be remembered is that the Supreme Court is not the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is. If the decisions of the Supreme Court do not agree with the people, they will be overturned, either by Civil War, as happened with the Dred Scott decision, or politically, which cannot happen without independent voters and independent candidates for office.
What independent voters should do to counter this latest Supreme Court decision is to start registering as independent candidates for public office by whatever means exists in their party-controlled states and party written state election laws. If independent candidates exist, the people can be told, You have a choice: Vote for corporate money by voting for a Democrat or Republican, or vote for an American
candidate by voting for an independent. Independent candidates should be ordinary citizens, soliciting no contributions, making no expenditures, expecting no publicity in the news media, and willing to serve in office if elected.
These two major parties are in the process of committing suicide.
Maybe we can give them harikari knives in heart-shaped boxes for Valentine's day?
Easy to do. Just go register as an independent candidate for some public office. Then go about your life as normal. But be willing to serve in that office in the event you are elected.
Americans are in the mood to replace all incumbents, which is the best thing they could do.
Robert B. Winn