Justice Thomas is a radical conservative on the Court. His campaign financing position is illustrative--not only did his vote smooth the way in Citizens United for corporatism to expand radically in this country through direct funding to support particular candidates but he'd support prohibiting all limitations on campaign financing. Let the cash flow.
Not surprisingly, his wife is an avid advocate of similar right-wing views. She established a radical right-wing organization, Liberty Central, that opposes the "tyranny" of the Democrats and has been seeded with $550,000 from undisclosed donors. The New York Times thinks this represents a potential conflict of interest for Thomas, and ethically requires disclosure of the donors' names. See Justice Thomas and His Wife, Oct. 12, 2010.
I agree. I think Citizens United was a terrible decision that will ultimately be reversed--decades from now, most likely, when we have another change in the Court similar to the change under FDR that led to renunciation of that earlier start-of-the-century radical right-wing economic constitutionalizing. Citizens United had much more to do with corporate (and corporate shareholder) power than it had to do with speech--in fact, it was a major setback for free speech and human rights.
But for now, we have to do something to counter the new ability of corporations and their owners/managers to buy elections and thus use their funds to secure the laws they want. Sunlight is one obvious weapon. We need full disclosure of all donations to all organizations that engage in any significant amount of campaigning (ads, documentaries, or whatever). And we need full disclosure of all phone and office contacts between corporate representatives and legislators--a complete schedule posted online and maintained ad infinitum for review by citizens should be required for every elected federal official.
Recent Comments