Home » Featured, Headline

Jolting Justice John Roberts: A Real Reformer on the Supreme Court

Pat Hickey 26 January 2010 5 Comments

Driving into Leo High School this Friday morning, having delivered three young ladies to Mother McAuley High School, I listened to Cindy Canary, Director of Illinois Campaign for Political Reform offer her very measured and thoughtful concerns about yesterday’s Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Campaign Contributions. Ms. Canary took a bat at political organization and the size of their financial support for Illinois candidates and is determined to further restrict such support.

I believe that any candidate should be able to accept any amount of money from any source. If a candidate is worthwhile and makes a strong case for support, the dollars and votes will flow to the campaign coffers and ballot box like gluttons to a buffet.

The Call for Real Reform always appears when on the scene after a lightweight or dim-bulb gets his fanny handed to him or her at election – Real Reform, it seems to me, never benefits the Republic, the State, the City, or the taxpayers. What Real Reform seems to mean is an artificial, and all too often Procrustean, adjustment to benefit some sap or loudmouth.

Agenda Politics and Agenda Politicians are the chief beneficiaries of Real Reform. PACs have been exempt from making heavy contributions to candidates – Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, NRA, Catholic Marxists for Sharia Law, Bestiality is Beautiful, and John Birch Alumni can hurl huge chunks of cash at a candidate for office with name recognition of an Andy Martin and the intellect of a Toni Preckwinkle and completely by-pass the accountability of the two major political party organizations.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the United States Supreme Court cut through almost a century of bovine soil nutrition and supported Free Political Speech. In Bloomberg News, Greg Stohr reminds us of John Roberts the Nominee who said in 2005, “It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent.” Jolt it was and is – a jolt to the armies of Agenda Politics.

A Corporation is no different a Corporate Entity than is a PAC, a Union, or an individual. An individual is a corporate entity – physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual. Corporate comes from the Latin Corpus- a Body.

Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court of the United States have defibrillated a body that has been anaesthetized by political rhetoric and cynical gamesmanship for nearly a century – Trust Busters – Bid Oil, Big Guns, Bossism & etc. As much as Scott Brown’s election to the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts jolted America awake.

This 5-4 Ruling frees PACS, Unions, and Corporations to make contributions – a form of free Speech. My dollar and some PAC’s millions of dollars are free to speak in support of a candidate.

Ms. Canary was concerned that Corporations having the freedom to make a contribution might stifle a candidate’s independence. It might is the candidate is a phony to begin with – if Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington to build a Boy’s Camp, by God he should high himself there. Under Ms. Canary’s rubric – Mr. Smith would go to Washington and, because of Corporation’s Lucky Bucks, Herr Smith would build Real Estate Developments for Neo-Cons. Non Sequitur, Ms. Canary.

A Candidate states her/his principles. Whether or not I back that person’s candidacy with the Hickey Fortune, as well as Exon’s Oily Bucks should not matter a wit to candidate with any principle.

Already, the PAC Happy Agenda-nistas are getting moist in the eye for tonight’s Ed Schultz Show, Hardball, Rachel Maddow, O’Reilly, and Hannity smear and shouts on Cable TV. Politico. Com reports this:

What many strategists and lawyers said they don’t expect to see is American International Group spending millions on ads attacking congressmen who criticized its bonuses or medical firms seeking vengeance on President Barack Obama for pushing to overhaul the nation’s health care system.

Instead, they think deep-pocketed companies seeking to target Obama or congressional Democrats will funnel their cash to existing or yet-to-be-created coalitions — such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America or the National Association of Manufacturers — that are expected to take advantage of the new spending flexibility provided by the ruling.

The Justice Roberts Jolt will awaken all Americans to power of the lobbies as well as the corporations. Voters will become energized. Most importantly, political, moral and intellectual nitwits might just become an endangered species. Candidates will need to stand closer and more exacting scrutiny. No longer will the mere “Isn’t She Great” from Planned Parenthood or “He’s a Sharp Guy” from the Swift Boaters be enough.

Cindy Canary will call for greater Reform an that is a wonderful thing for Illinois. Thanks to the Chief Justice, all Americans can snap awake to the fact that we have merely accepted what groups of very interested persons and parties have wanted Reform to mean. Yesterday’s Supreme Ruling is real Reform.

**

Pat Hickey is a regular columnist for the Chicago Daily Observer.  He taught at La Lumiere School in La Porte, Indiana for many years.

image John Roberts, La Lumiere 1973 yearbook photo

5 Comments »

  • Dan Kelley said:

    Some folks forget that when the always equivocating Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and her colleagues approved the McCain Feingold campaign limit measures, the opinion suggested that the SCOTUS was trying the strait jacket on for size and reserved the right to return the article if dissatisfied. Roberts and his colleagues did just that. How is that so many of the dedicated leftists can find fault with the Court reaffirming the validity of the First Amendment? Campaign contributions are a form of political speech.

  • Anthony said:

    Pat, thank you for your insightful and accurate evaluation of the decision. I’ve read Justice Kennedy’s Majority Opinion, the Minority Opinion and Justice Scalia’s rebuttal to the Minority Opinion. You’re quite right individuals and/ or corporations should be able to contribute any and all their finances if they desire. The most cogent argument was forwarded Scalia’s rebuttal when he wrote that individuals make up and represent corporations and based his thought of both on the thought and writing of the Founding Fathers who were made up of an “Association”. Actually, corporations of their time were looked down upon more so than today but they NEVER intended restraint on political thought and expression whatever the affiliation. The present populist thought would have us believe Corporations were not their intent. Although they never dreamed of today’s corporations, they fully understood and intended citizens to form “groups” with no restraint on definition. They were far reaching and prophetic after all.

  • Mike F said:

    Corporations are made “legal persons” so that they can be taxed and sued. If corporations lose their personhood, then they would be taxed without being represented.

  • MATT MCGUIRE said:

    OPEN NOTE TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ALL ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.”AS JUST AN ORDINARY AMERICAN CITIZEN I DO FEEL COMPELLED TO ISSUE AN APOLOGY FOR THE BEHAVIOR AND COMMENTS MADE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE COURT WHO WERE PRESENT AT PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PRESENTATION TO THE NATION ON WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 27,2010. THE LACK OF RESPECT SHOWN FOR THE COURT BY THE REMARKS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT AND SUBSEQUENT DEMONSTRATION BY SOME OF THE LEGISLATORS PRESENT WAS NOT ONLY CLASSLESS; BUT CRASS & DANGEROUSLY ARROGRANT. I AM CERTAIN THAT IF THE ROLES WERE REVERSED THESE INDIVIDUALS WOULD NOT TAKE THE SAME CONDUCT WITHOUT CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE PUNISHMENT AND RETRIBUTION.
    I ALSO WISH TO EXPRESS MY THANKS FOR THE “PROFESSIONAL” MANNER THAT ALL OF YOU PRESENT EXHIBITED DURING THE ENTIRE EVENT. IT IS AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE TO YOUNGER CITIZENS AS TO “HOW TO BEHAVE”,INCLUDING THE RESPECT THAT IS DESERVING THESE POSITIONS.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

  • Christophe Smith said:

    Legally, The supreme courts decision is right. However in my opinion ethically it is wrong. In the past and probably still today there have been pretty shady corporations, individuals
    & lobbys financing electoral campaigns. Who controls that?
    The question is do we live in a moneycracy or a democracy.? If an idea is good & great then why does one need so much money selling it?

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.