I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Citizens United decision

In case you don't remember, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which came down in 2010 said, basically, that the 1st Amendment protects your right to spend money on advancing your opinions (including elections) whether you are spending $40 or $40 million.

Obama and the left were outraged.  Obama  very inappropriately (and incorrectly) chastised the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address about it.

We were warned that all of that money would put the government up for sale to the highest bidder.  Whoever put up the money could buy the government.

Well, we've had our first presidential  election since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

It appears that the plutocrats have bought themselves the following results:

House of Representatives    Democrats gained seats
Senate                                Democrats gained seats
President                            Democrat reelected

PS  I find it passing strange that people can oppose this decision and, simultaneously, support the right of the NYTimes to make 14 Democratic endorsements in a row and Springsteen, Oprah, and Trace Adkins to generate god knows how much support for candidates.


  1. The category of “passing strange” could generate enough examples to support its own blog.

  2. Being a good little Democrat I opposed the ruling from the moment I heard about it, but you do make a lot of sense. Not all support of great value is money. The only thing I would point out is that when the New York Times comes out in support of a candidate we all know with no research or other effort that it's the New York Times. And when O and Springsteen support a candidate we all know it's O and Springsteen. When ads appear on tv and they're paid for by "Americans Who Love America More Than Any Other Americans Do", for example, viewers do not readily know who's behind it. Maybe a small point, but there is a difference.

    1. Actually, I think that you are making a large point. A problem that I think could be corrected by legislation. I don't believe that the court has ever said that anybody has a right to anonymous speech. The anonymity is at the feet of Congress.