WaPo Keeps It Trivial

Posted on by

Robert Barnes of the Washington Post writes at length about the SOTU Citizens United Justice Alito controversy. Mind you, there’s no discussion whatsoever of Citizens United; just back and forth about who dissed whom. Typical.

David Savage has a similar article at the Los Angeles Times, but at least Savage provides some background on what the Citizens United case is about and lets us know there is genuine controversy over the decision.

One of the weirder comments today is from Adam Winkler, who tells us soothingly that Alito was right —

Alito was right. The president was wrong about the Supreme Court decision. Obama said, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” …

…There are a lot of grounds to criticize the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision. It will allow corporations to spend shareholder money to influence the election of candidates many of those shareholders don’t support. And it does open up a loophole that allows foreign corporations to influence federal elections through their U.S. subsidiaries.

So how is Alito “right”?

But the Court did not overturn “a century of law.” The provision upended by the Court was only seven years old. It was a novel innovation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law adopted during the Bush Administration.

Oh, is that all? The thing about opening up a loophole to allow foreign corporations influence U.S. elections is not a concern?

David Savage writes that the Citizens United ruling did strike down a century of law:

Since 1907, Congress has prohibited corporations from using their money “directly or indirectly” to elect candidates for federal office. After World War II, Congress extended this ban to labor unions and made it clear that the ban applied to independent election spending, not just contributions to a candidate.

But last week’s decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission struck down this election spending ban. “The 1st Amendment does not permit . . . these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

I’ve yet to see anyone explain how the ruling would not allow foreign corporations to influence elections, and IMO the idea that this case will somehow enable the free speech of the common person seems to me to be hallucinatory. All we get from the Right is knee jerk affirmation that the ruling is Good.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of smart people who are opposed to Citizens United and clearly state their reasons why. These include Justice Stevens, who said in his dissent that the ruling “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Joe Conason says that Alito so much as acknowledged that the ruling would allow interference by foreign corporations, but is OK with that.

“Well, Mr. Olson,” he [Alito] asked, “do you think that media corporations that are owned or principally owned by foreign shareholders have less First Amendment rights than other media corporations in the United States?” Replied Olson, “I don’t think so, Justice Alito, and certainly there is no record to suggest that there is any kind of problem based upon that.”

No problem with foreign-owned media corporations publishing and broadcasting in the United States, perhaps — although some critics have wondered from time to time whether the Washington Times and the Unification Church were acting as instruments of a foreign power. But if foreign-owned corporations possess fully the same rights as citizens to participate in elections under the majority decision — as Olson and Alito indicated — then we could face a serious problem indeed.

But of course, the Libertarians at Reason magazine think this is just dandy, because they love liberty so much. Now global corporate interests have more freedom to manipulate our elections.

One other thing — several writers, including Barnes and Savage, recall that Senator Obama was adamantly opposed to confirming Alito, and that Alito has snubbed the President ever since. Corrupt and petty; no wonder Republicans love Alito.

See also Eric Alterman, “Court Disposes, Media Yawn.”

Who Dissed Whom?

Posted on by

I missed it last night, but when President Obama brought up the Citizens United case during last night’s SOTU address, Justice Alito shook his head and mouthed, “not true.” Exactly what wasn’t true is a matter of some dispute, but I’ll come back to that later.

This morning the the question that has become a partisan litmus test is, was the Justice being rude to the President? Or was the President being rude to the Justice?

Some headlines today say that the Justice “dissed” the President. There have been some comparisons between Alito’s “not true” and last year’s Joe Wilson “you lie” episode.

According to others, however, the chief executive was being way too uppity disrespectful toward the Judicial branch. According to Randy Barnett, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center,

In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

To answer Professor Barnett’s questions, apparently presidents have called out the Supreme Court during SOTU addresses before, although it’s certainly very unusual. According to Tony Mauro of the BLT: Blog of the Legal Times,

In 1988 President Ronald Reagan made an indirect jab at the Court’s school prayer rulings when he said, “And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation’s health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.” In the same speech Reagan also urged the Senate to confirm Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court — the very justice whose handiwork in Citizens United Obama was criticizing.

Also,

President Warren Harding in 1922 also urged passage of a constitutional amendment to counteract Supreme Court rulings — the decisions that placed child labor “outside the proper domain of federal regulation,” as he put it. Harding added, “We ought to amend [the Constitution] to meet the demands of the people when sanctioned by deliberate public opinion.”

Also,

An alert reader notes that in his January 1937 State of the Union address, Roosevelt criticized the Supreme Court without using those words. Upset that the Court had thwarted his efforts to pull the nation out of the Depression, Roosevelt a month later introduced his ultimately unsuccessful “court-packing” plan that would have allowed him to expand membership of the Court and add justices of his own choosing. Here is what Roosevelt said in his State of the Union address: “The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good. The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government.”

So while the President may have spoken a bit more plainly and directly than presidents have in the past, what he said was not completely unprecedented.

Still, Bradley A. Smith at NRO has the vapors.

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

The president’s statement is false.

Um, maybe not. Zachary Roth, TPM Muckraker:

The ruling affirms that corporations, like individuals, have a free-speech right to spend unlimited amounts from their general treasuries on ad campaigns that support or oppose political candidates. It’s true that foreign nationals are currently prohibited by law from making independent expenditures in U.S. elections. But that prohibition has little teeth. According to experts, it doesn’t apply to foreign-owned corporations that incorporate in the U.S., or have U.S. subsidiaries — meaning most foreign multinationals likely aren’t covered. So there’s “essentially no difference” between domestic and foreign corporations in terms of their ability to pump money into U.S. elections, says Lisa Gilbert of U.S. PIRG — a view backed by several other advocates of increased regulation.

I don’t understand how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of today’s global economy doesn’t know that corporations straddle national boundaries and can have global memberships. One wonders if Sam Alito goes to work in a horse-drawn buggy.

And while I think the Supremes owe the American people an apology — even a Jimmy Swaggart-style public groveling — I don’t think the President and the Justice owe apologies to each other. They’re both big boys. They can take a little dissing.

Also worthy of note: Tweety’s WTF Moment.

Update: “I just Remembered Chris Matthews Was White“

SOTU Live Blog

Posted on by

State of the UnionThe White House has released a partial transcript.

I understand Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell will give the Republican response. If anyone wants to stay put and comment on that, feel free. Here’s the release of McDonnell’s text. I’m still looking for the official SOTU text.

Here’s a question — isn’t it a bit weird for Supreme Court justices to wear their robes when they aren’t on the bench? I guess they do, but seems strange to me. It’s not like a priest’s robe or military uniform.

These are the times that try men’s souls. Answer history’s call. Yes, let’s.

Why is Washington unable or unwilling to solve our problems? And what’s up with the shouting, pettiness, etc.?

“Numbing weight of our politics” — good phrase. Now what are we going to do about it?

So far this speech is not working for me. I think the American people are getting tired of being told how decent and hard working they are.

We are unified! We all hate bankers!

Message: Everything sucks, but if it weren’t for me everything would suck worse. I think this is true, but I’m not feeling warm and fuzzy about it.

Stick it to bankers!

Republicans only applaud Republican tax cuts. Democratic tax cuts don’t count.

Small business loans — should be popular.

Sorry — dozed off. Jobs. OK.

Financial reform. OK, MSNBC cameras went to Senator Dodd as soon as Obama mentioned financial reform. Ouch.

Hey, the Republicans like nuclear power plants! Even better than tax cuts! Oil and gas development!

Disagree with “overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” Nice dig.

Finally, here’s the complete text.

“To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans.”

Yes! Steps to reduce the student loan debt on the young folks. Very good.

Health insurance reform. Sigh.

“Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for them.”

Partly your fault, Mr. President.

He added a line to the paragraph above about taking his share of the blame.

I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber.

I hope this signals he is going to get more engaged in pushing this.

We’re past the halfway point in the text, btw.

Am I hearing some boos?

We cannot continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making more than $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it. Works for me.

I’m still leery of the spending freeze and “bipartisan fiscal commission.”

Mention of Citizens United. Yeah, with some of the bums sitting right there in front of him.

Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

Oh, they’re all against those awful earmarks. I guess the earmark devil makes them do it.

I’m going to guess the pundits will grade this speech in the C+ to B – range, except on Fox News, where it will of course have completely failed.

Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.

In other news, I see that Peg is whining that I was mean to her. Poor baby.

He deviated from the text a bit about bringing troops home from Afghanistan. I’m not sure I caught exactly what he said.

We’re on the next to the last page, folks.

Hey, he’s repealing don’t ask, don’t tell? That’s a plus.

I campaigned on the promise of change – change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change – or at least, that I can deliver it.

But remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.

OK, but dude, you’ve got to be more visible, more engaged with what’s going on in Congress.

Anyone else want to grade this? I don’t think the speech itself will have much impact on current political momentum.

I am really, really tired and am going to tune out now, but keep talking among yourselves.

A Sweet Spot

Posted on by

Something to cheer us up in an otherwise gloomy week —

Alleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O’Keefe, 25, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group’s credibility.

Also arrested were Joseph Basel, Stan Dai and Robert Flanagan, all 24. Flanagan is the son of William Flanagan, who is the acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, the office confirmed. All four were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.

Yeah, O’Keefe was the guy who played the pimp in the infamous ACORN sting videos. I’m getting read to go out and don’t have time to see what excuses the wingnuts are cooking up for O’Keefe et al. They should be good.

Update: Fox News is looking for “context.” Snort.

Today’s Agenda

Posted on by

Item One: Please visit Amygdala, and if you the means, please send Gary some support. It’s a fact that as a culture we’re still living in the Dark Ages as far as mental and mood disorders are concerned, and if you are hampered by such the world cuts you no slack. It’s why a lot of us end up, shall we say, financially challenged.

Item Two: WTF? For pro and con on the looming domestic spending freeze, see Matt Yglesias (trying to put the best face on it) and Brad DeLong (“Barack Herbert Hoover Obama?”) Robert Reich thinks it’s a huge mistake. Paul Krugman hasn’t weighed in yet, but I expect him to be shrill. [Update: Yep, pretty much.]

And may I say, I really wish I didn’t have so many ties to the community here, or I’d seriously consider relocating to another country before it’s too late. Maybe I can get everyone else to move with me.

Item Three: A couple of days ago I ran into a post written by a Buddhist on a conservative blog, and it was one of the more surreal things I’ve seen on the Web lately. I posted a comment on it in the forum on the Buddhism website, and if you feel inclined to discuss it, please go there. It’s funnier if you understand Buddhist doctrine, but even if you don’t I’m sure you can still see the weirdness.

The funniest part, to me, is that the author attributes her conversion to political conservatism to the teachings of the late Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche. The Rinpoche was many outrageous things, but conservative wasn’t one of them.

Don’t Blame Bureaucrats

Posted on by

Regarding our recent discussion about the purported “flexibility” of private business vs. “government bureaucrats” — there really is a problem with inflexibility in government, but the infamous “bureaucrats” are not the cause.

In the current Atlantic, James Fallows writes about “How America Can Rise Again.” It’s supposed to be cheerful, I think, but it isn’t. This comes near the end:

The late economist Mancur Olson laid out the consequences of institutional aging in his 1982 book, The Rise and Decline of Nations. Year by year, he said, special-interest groups inevitably take bite after tiny bite out of the total national wealth. They do so through tax breaks, special appropriations, what we now call legislative “earmarks,” and other favors that are all easier to initiate than to cut off. No single nibble is that dramatic or burdensome, but over the decades they threaten to convert any stable democracy into a big, inefficient, favor-ridden state. In 1994, Jonathan Rauch updated Olson’s analysis and called this enfeebling pattern “demosclerosis,” in a book of that name. He defined the problem as “government’s progressive loss of the ability to adapt,” a process “like hardening of the arteries, which builds up stealthily over many years.”

We are now 200-plus years past Jefferson’s wish for permanent revolution and nearly 30 past Olson’s warning, with that much more buildup of systemic plaque—and of structural distortions, too. When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry.

Well, yeah. That’s about as concise a description of our basic problem as I’ve seen anywhere. But do we dare revise the Constitution and change the makeup of the Senate? Until very recently I’ve been opposed to any mucking around with the Constitution, but maybe we should be discussing it — not just Senate reform, but Senate revision.

The whole article is worth reading. The problem with it is that Fallows keeps coming up with reasons why America really isn’t going to hell in a handbasket, but I don’t find his assurances very reassuring.

Can Obama Reboot?

Posted on by

While I don’t agree with everything Frank Rich wrote in his column today — for example, Rich seems to think Congress should abandon health care reform — but he’s right here:

Obama’s plight has been unchanged for months. Neither in action nor in message is he in front of the anger roiling a country where high unemployment remains unchecked and spiraling foreclosures are demolishing the bedrock American dream of home ownership. The president is no longer seen as a savior but as a captive of the interests who ginned up the mess and still profit, hugely, from it. …

…Obama has blundered, not by positioning himself too far to the left but by landing nowhere — frittering away his political capital by being too vague, too slow and too deferential to Congress. The smartest thing said as the Massachusetts returns came in Tuesday night was by Howard Fineman on MSNBC: “Obama took all his winnings and turned them over to Max Baucus.”

President Obama is only one year into his term. Can he reboot his administration? Can he recapture some momentum? I think it’s possible for someone of great political skill — Bill Clinton comes to mind — to dig out of a hole and reclaim public confidence, but whether Obama can do it remains to be seen.

The return of David Plouffe indicates the White House knows it has to change course. However, it shouldn’t be the job of a political adviser to tell the President to stop being vague, slow and deferential.

Other Stuff to Read: Bob Herbert, “They Still Don’t Get It”

Update: It won’t happen, but here’s one way the Obama Administration could shake things up.