It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In Slate, Dahlia Lithwick examines the impact that Stephen Colbert's SuperPAC is having on public perception of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, which establishes that "corporate personhood" means that corporations can make unlimited contributions to political campaigns. Dahlia implies that the Court, which has always maintained an aloofness from public life (no cameras, no press office) is smarting under Colbert's withering sarcasm, and that people are responding as well. For example, Colbert's SuperPAC backed Herman Cain (not a candidate) in the South Carolina race, and the voters put him ahead of Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann.
Then last June, like a winking, eyebrow-wagging Mr. Smith, Colbert went to Washington and testified before the FEC, which granted him permission to launch his super PAC (over the objections of his parent company Viacom) and accept unlimited contributions from his fans so he might sway elections. (He tweeted before his FEC appearance that PAC stands for "Plastic And/Or Cash.") In recent weeks, Colbert has run several truly insane attack ads (including one accusing Mitt Romney of being a serial killer). Then, with perfect comedic pitch, Colbert handed off control of his super PAC to Jon Stewart (lampooning the FEC rules about coordination between “independent PACS” and candidates with a one-page legal document and a Vulcan mind meld). Colbert then managed to throw his support to non-candidate Herman Cain in the South Carolina primary, placing higher on the ballot than Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann.
The line between entertainment and the court blurred even further late last month when Colbert had former Justice John Paul Stevens on his show to discuss his dissent in Citizens United. When a 91-year-old former justice is patiently explaining to a comedian that corporations are not people, it’s clear that everything about the majority opinion has been reduced to a punch line.
In my personal opinion donations to candidates should be limited to individual citizens. That is it. Only the people the candidates intend to serve should be allowed to fund them. I think they should put an end to contributions from PACs, Unions, corporations, lobbyists. etc etc. All of it. Only citizens not corporations or groups that could benefit.
The Constitutional Amendment introduced by Rep. Ted Deutch and Senator Bernie Sanders will end corporate influence in our elections by:
- Overturning Citizens United and outright banning the ability of corporations to use their profits to influence our elections.
-Making clear that corporations, as well as entities formed to represent corporations — are not real, living people with rights protected by our Constitution. They are entities established under our laws and thus subject to our laws.
-Reasserting the authority of Congress and the States to crack down on anonymous third party groups flooding our elections with malicious attack ads and to limit campaign contributions and expenditures by individuals, candidates, and all types of private entities.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Colbert then managed to throw his support to non-candidate Herman Cain in the South Carolina primary...
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
it is a great example of how the nation is run and elections are rigged by just a few people.