Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Poll: Two-Thirds Of Americans Unhappy About Citizens United Ruling
Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito may not have wanted to hear it during the State Of The Union address, but a new poll shows the majority of Americans agree with President Obama's take on the Citizens United ruling. More than 60 percent of respondents say it was a bad idea.
The opposition was found across party lines, and according to the pollsters was especially common among independents -- the group both parties have desperately fought over for a decade now. The pollsters said that result suggests that the parties would be well-served to take on the ruling and reinstate campaign finance regulations canceled out by the ruling with new law.
The poll was conducted by a bipartisan pairing of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon. The sponsors were several groups opposed to the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which they say will open the door to unheard of corporate influence in American politics. The results of the survey show that the general public overwhelmingly agrees. Sixty-four percent of respondents were opposed to ruling, while just 27% said they favored it.
"The results are pretty striking," Greeberg said on a conference call with reporters this morning. He said that the current anti-establishment fervor in the electorate suggests that incumbents should get as far away from the Citizens United ruling as they can. "The last thing people want to see in this environment is corporations having more influence on politicians."
That's especially true among independents, as data from the poll shows.
More than 80% of independents said new limits should be placed on campaign spending. Seventy-four percent of independents agreed with the statement that "special interests have too much influence in Washington."
Though the results are good news for campaign finance reform fans, they're not so good for the party in power at the moment. Independents did not give positive reviews on how Democrats have dealt with the problem of special interest influence in Washington. Just 30% said President Obama has reduced the power of lobbyists in Washington, while 50% said special interests have gained more power in the city since he took office.
55 Comments so far
Show Alltwo-thirds of Americans? Human Americans, or corporate Americans? If humans, who let them out of the corral? Its dangerous to do that, they begin thinking they run the ranch.
Not to worry. There are plenty of cattle prods and tasers handy to disabuse them of any such fantasies.
Thank God. If I wanted humans to run the show, I'd go live in a democracy.
And in 2012, Exxon becomes president...
They'd have to find a junior exec willing to accept a temporary demotion.
Since there are more lobbyists in DC today than there were one year ago it is very apparent that when they say majority rule it means those who have the majority of the dollars, not the the majority of voters.
Lobbying was a growth industry in 2009 and continues to be in 2010. You don't see lobbyists signing up for unemployment insurance.
raydelcamino: No, you don't see "lobbyists signing up for unemployment insurance" but you just might see that happy addition to our unemployment rolls, just as you might see heavily corporate-funded candidates being retired by those with more populist modes of campaigning. The human "cattle" that posters above refer to being herded by corporate "ranchers" with prods may yet realize that they are not indeed cattle and their votes can and will be witheld from those incumbents and contenders for office who are lavishly endowed with campaign financing and lobbyist perks.
For this to happen, the public revulsion against the money control of all branches of government at every level from the local to the nation must make a "perverse incentive" for campaign and lobbyist money that will send those who represent we the people avoiding such funding like the kiss of death or the plague rather than, as now, the sine non qua of any successful campaign or incumbency. This will happen when candidates of modest means disdain extravagant fund-raising and spending and "run against the money" of their well-heeled opponents, using public information sources of lobbyist support of incumbents and campaign contributions to all candidates as an albatross around their opponents' necks.
Sure, I'm all for public financing of campaigns and limits on expenditures and I certainly have deplored the Citizens United decision, but it seems the height of folly to believe that our money-corrupted political system can produce a system free of money corruption. Wouldn't it be one of the great ironies of our political history if this case were to move the "cattle" that constitute the American electorate to become a truly "Citizens United" to remove the plague of plutocratic domination of our politics? It can be done, it is being done with grassroots-style campaigns occurring throughout this country. We just need mechanisms of communication and mutual inspiration to make a "United" movement of these scattered citizens' efforts. Every lush plant I know about sprang from well-nourished roots; a "top-down" approach to change may be as impossible in political life as it is in the natural world.
For the last couple of years, my own suggestion for such a "bottom-up" and "United" movement has been a Coalition for a New Constitutional Convention.
I think that this decision WILL activate more people than we jaded lefties might anticipate.
The one thing that all Citizens know about in our political history is the general spirit of Democracy, Liberty, and Justice that fired the Revolution. This is because this is the bit that everyone had force-fed to them in grade school.
This ruling goes way too far in asserting a corporate enterprise's "sameness" to actual human persons.
Combine this with the current economic situation (I read a P.C. Roberts article on Counterpunch that claimed 22% unemployment by the pre-Reagan standards) and you have quite the heady brew for populist revolt.
The trick will be preventing this revolt from being split in two and absorbed by the Corporacratic Parties because of social and ideological differences amongst the people and "divide and conquer" propaganda from the Corporacrats.
Already this site and other "progressive" ones are succumbing to the barrage of articles demonizing the Tea Party (social Right, 18th Century Libertine Populist current) for all of the Progressives (social Left, 20th Century Social Justice Populist current).
We must break this machine for dividing the People or all will be for naught.
-matti.
One hundred per cent of Americans could be against the ruling and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. The gangsters are going to do whatever they want. There are only two ways to stop them: *Refrain from voting for either party of the duopoly and try to create a new way, or * Drag the thugs down bodily from their high places. The latter probably won't work because new gangs of thugs will simply replace the old gangs of thugs. The people who mean well and want to change things for the better will either be murdered or forced into hiding in exile.
don't discount too quickly the effectiveness of dragging them down bodily...much more effective than any 'voting' thing...
the trick is unity...strength...solidarity...
Global Sart Date: September 22, 2012...unanimous cessation of industry and electricity...revocation of contracts and property rights...local agrarian, acoustic living...individual engagement in survival and defense...
As if elections made any difference in this country.
Of course it was this same Supreme Court that ruled the citizens do not have the right to have their vote counted.
Might was take time to look at whether the Supreme Court is dismantling our Constitution, or, worse, actually committing treason.
Just Asking
There's a very good case for the 2000 court committing treason--a whole book in fact: "The Betrayal of America" by Bugliosi.
The ramifications of the Citizens United decision has not really sank in to the public conscious yet. If you are for legislation slowing climate change, for banking reform, health care reform, campaign finance reform, net neutrality, gay marriage, pro-choice protections, repealing NAFTA/GATT/WTO, a separation of church and state, stopping mountain top removal, etc., etc., you might as well try pissing in a hurricane. Republicans are rejoicing over this crap because the Bill of Rights is nothing but toilet paper after the 2nd Amendment in their eyes.
Before you go much further down that "us against them" road with the Repubs over this, check out my post below that contains the actual questions the poll asked in re this case.
Most interesting to me was the correspondance between how many new "nothing at all" of the case, and how many "strongly" or "somewhat favor" it.
Also note that at no point did the questions mention ON WHAT BASIS the Court decided that corporations had such a right. No Corporations are persons therefore they have free speech rights here.
-matti.
Here's the actual questions relating to the Citizen United case:
(format slightly altered to work better on this page)
"Q.30 Recently, the Supreme Court ruled on a case brought by the group Citizens United that changed campaign finance laws and will allow corporations, unions and other groups to spend money to directly support or oppose specific candidates. How much have you heard or seen about the Supreme Court's decision in this case -- a great deal, some but not a lot, not very much, or nothing at all?
-A great deal... 26%
-Some but not a lot... 30%
-Not very much... 23%
-Nothing at all... 20%
-(Don't know/refused)... 1%
-(total) Great deal/Some... 56%
-(total) Not verymuch/Nothing... 43%
Q.31 Now let me read you a short description of this case. Before the decision, the law barred corporations and unions from spending money to support or oppose candidates. The Supreme Court overturned this previous law and ruled that corporations and unions have the right to spend money to support or oppose specific candidates. Now, after learning a little bit more about this, do you favor or oppose this decision?
-Strongly favor... 11%
-Somewhat favor... 16%
-Somewhat oppose... 17%
-Strongly oppose... 47%
-(Indifferent)... 1%
-(Don't know/refused)... 8%
-Total favor... 27%
-Total oppose... 64%
-Favor - Oppose(split)... -37%"
-----
NEVER, EVER trust a third-hand account of the summary of a poll to give you a real understanding of the results relevant to a very important, but little mentioned, factor -the way the questions were asked.
Go to:
http://www.gqrr.com/articles/2425/5606_cc10020410fq1.pdf
To see more of the actual questionaire and direct results yourself.
(or got to the link in the article an click the "survey results" link on that page)
I'll hold off on my opinions of this since this post is getting long.
-matti.
Thanks for posting this. The first part--heard of or seen the decision--"Nothing at all...20%" is simply amazing, while the 'Not very much...23%" is somewhat easier to understand. Combined, the 43% is a snapshot of our nation's political dysfunctionality, which is the fundamental source of our dilemma. Furthermore, it also provides a clue as to the effectiveness of the Propaganda System at promoting the nation's political dysfunctionality.
Precisely.
I'd say the 20% "Nothing at all" also gives a clue as to the real source of the "Strongly favor" plus "Somewhat favor" 27%, wouldn't you?
Question 31's clever avoidance of the reasoning that the Court used in making this decision, the fact that it was a bare majority for, with a strongly worded dissent, and just how much previously standing Law and how popular those Laws were has a lot to do with it as well, in my opinion.
Also, I'd say the insistence of the question that UNIONS also recieve such rights from the ruling could easily account for the 11% strongly favoring.
The summary and TalkingPointsMemo's version of it seem to me to almost be DESIGNED to convince self-described Dems and Independents that some shadowy third of the population is actually FOR Corporate-rule (like say Repubs, yeep!) while what the data bears out is that almost half don't really understand what the ruling was yet, and under 3 in 10 favor a misleading representation of what the ruling does.
Divide and Conquer.
That's the Corporacrats strategy.
-matti.
Yeah, too bad the question Should corporations be treated as persons? wasn't asked along with several relevant others. I would agree that the pollsters were out to get a particular result but nothing that would reveal too much of the public's temperment.
Edit: Just read the whole poll. It contains some useful additional info, particularly the biases of who formulated the questions. But the sample size--805--is so small, the poll is almost meaningless.
matti, good job. Thanks for the research. What I get from these numbers is that 26% is paying close attention and I'm not sure how much difference there is between "not a lot" and "not very much". 20% appears to have other priorities than even listening to the news (such as it is). But it appears than a large majority don't want corporate money in politics, even if they are clueless about how it got there.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Yes, thank you for posting this, it is precisely what I was wondering about. In a country where most people can't even name a Supreme Court Justice, I was highly skeptical that two-thirds of the country had even heard of the Citizens United case, let alone were adamantly opposed to it as the title of this article suggests. Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point... the Supreme Court ruling that really mattered was Bush v. Gore. Americans allowed that travesty of justice to take place without even a whimper of protest, and then proceeded to sit back and watch as GWB ran the country into the ground. What difference does it make now if some poll respondents express dissatisfaction with a ruling that they hadn't even heard of until the pollster explained it to them? Idiots.
(Know) Nothing at all... 20% = FAUX News viewers.
Not very much... 23% = Those whose only source of 'news' is all other Assimilated Press outlets.
The good news is, the overall percentage of people who subject themselves solely to propaganda appears to be contracting.
My goodness! It appears that more people are paying attention. 50% of Americans have noticed that special interests have more power since the Democrats came into power. That is a seriously ominous finding for the Democrats for the midterms.
If they are smart, they will jettison the Blue Dogs and promote reform candidates. Oh, I forgot, we're talking about Democrats here, who can't take their eyes off K Street.
So Wall Street is talking about punishing the Democrats for even timidly bringing up banking reform. Looks like the velvet glove is coming off the iron fist ruling America.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
While the blue dog Democrats may have the MOST egregious voting record among Democrats, many so-called liberal Democrats voted for Billy Tauzin's 2003 Medicare drug swindle, TARP, Obamacare, Bernanke reconfirmation and other supply-side corporate welfare schemes disguised as populist legislation.
Exactly.
The Bush Crime Family Court is not to be trusted.
When have fascists ever cared about their unwashed masses?
Are you succumbing to the summary's manipulation of the data and this article's logical wanderings from the same?
Check out the actual wording of the relevant questions and the actual data tallies that I posted above.
Considering that 43% admit to not really knowing what this ruling was about, 64% percent opposition is an indicator that far more that "Two-Thirds of Americans" would be "Unhappy" about this ruling if they actually new any thing about it.
If I have misinterpreted your comment, I apologize.
It is just that I have seen CD and several other usually good newsites fall prey recently to the classic divide-and-conquer tactics being put out by the Corporacratic Media in regards to "right-wing" versus "left-wing" issues.
We must not let the People be divided by those who would exploit such division to prevent Democracy!
-matti.
So what do we know about the "corporate ties" these five conservative judges have?
The game seems to work like this:
Use the media to create in the minds of the masses a belief that things are gonna be different, the newly elected party will change the way stuff works in Washington! Once We the People think we've won something, do the opposite of what you say. Throw a bone or two of course but, for the most part, screw the people, giving the majorities back to the other party, which will do essentially the same thing.
Back and forth, two and fro, the empire maintains the status quo.
Time to think outside their box!
Your comment reminds me of an unpleasant, even disturbing literary scenario of Hell called "The Heavenly Bower"; I believe Thomas Mann authored it.
In this scenario, Hell is envisioned as two chambers connected by a corridor. One chamber is boiling hot, the other freezing cold.
The damned souls in the burning chamber see the cool, icy chamber at the other end of the hall, and rush toward this "heavenly bower" of relief and comfort; their frozen counterparts likewise race towards the blissful warmth of the other chamber.
Thus, the damned unceasingly and eternally race up and down the corridor, compelled to escape their misery by taking refuge in the heavenly bower just across the way.
What an ingeniously creepy concept! Yet, I expect that there are a few damned souls convinced that electing more and better ice cubes, or flames, will eventually yield thermostatic control back to the people.
Time to think outside Hell!
· Yr Obd't Servant
"so?"
The SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance must be reversed. Contact your elected officials about this. If they don't work to reverse it, replace them with a progressive official who will.
The only way a Supreme Court decision can be overturned is by bringing a case before that court and getting a different ruling, one which ignores stare desisis. I refer you to Brown V. Board of Education which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson as an example of the only way to reverse a SC decision.
You can also amend the constitution.
Maybe if we had a leader as our president, he/she would harness the 2/3 majority who are against this for a constitutional amendment banning corporate personhood. Maybe.
fallen world, that won't work. Scotus would rule the amendment unconstitutional. In their worldview, corporations are persons, although without the behavior limits we place on breathing persons. That is, they are free to act as sociopaths as required by corporate missions to place profits above all other considerations. Until we can replace some (at least one) of these justices with a sane justice, we're stuck with corporate personhood.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Sorry. An amendment would stand.
Those near Madison, Wisconsin might want to check out
http://www.wisdc.org/
for a nonpartisan group ready to actually march against this Court ruling ...
The only amendment to the contitution that is necessary is simply a separation of lobbiest and state. Making bribery a crime again. The consquences would be severe and unavaoidable for any "person" using "free speech $$" in an attempt to influence our legislaive body. The only legal way to talk to your reps would be one on one as a citizen. No PACS, 501Cs, paid bribers, or foriegn interests etc....
the problem is that kind of amendment will never arrive because the congress - which makes amendments - is now wholly owned by the corporations.
if anything - the US congress is no longer really a "congress" or lawmaking body of any semblance to the proper notion of it for a society of any level of real decency. the USA congress is nothing more than a congress by name only -- but in reality is already THE CORPORATION in disguise.
the supreme court is the same. the majority , if not all "yet", of district and regional and county levels are simply the "footmen" levels of propagating this "top down" MONOculture of corporatism..and their only real USE is to keep the
people at the local level (where most of their daily awareness resides) THINK that there is still a "justice system" ...
but in reality - they are merely being thrown the CRUMBS to keep up the pretense and distraction that they are being "listened to"....notice that most of the lower courts are just really concerned, by the nature of their position with LOCAL matters == neighborhood crime, civil suits, litigations of a financial nature between the "small people", quarrels, etc....
but these NEVER touch the DEFINING culture that is corporatism which has been legally given the power to BE the United States of America.
it is already full-blown Fascism. even if it is not yet THAT in its "old classic" sense - such as Mussolini's or Hitler's - precisely because it is more clever and insidious in the way it is masked as a 'democracy' - with "working processes".
as these things transpire, i am becoming more and more convinced that barring a national , massive revolt by the people, to once and for all remove all these criminals from power, in which the aftermath will NOT RESEMBLE anything the United States of America EVER WAS...
the USA can not be saved from itself. it will and IS already destroying itself.
and the aftermath of THAT destruction will be - that isntead of a NATION that achieved "greatness" or even its dark side of "full spectrum dominance" which is futile (and is part of its self-destruction, even as the perpetrating corporations profit from it through the destruction)
what WAS the USA will become OWNED by foreign entities..and americans will eventually live a life in which they are - depending on the tolerance of foreign "owners" - the PEONS of foreigners - at the behest of their own fellow "americans" named the Corporations.
in either case - the destruction of america will come at the hands of americans. both the people for their inability to stop it and the corporations for their ability to bring it about.
there will be no america of any semblance to what people TODAY still imagine "was" or "can be" -- 30 - 50 years from now.
what was once a SMALL chance, flawed as even america's constitution was and its inception and pretended continuation - can not be put back together. it is completely broken and only the SHARDS of that broken vase remain -- to be picked up by whoever has the power to pick it up ...but americans will not see "kindness"...they will become a "nation" or "people" who will be as much at the mercy of other powers as others were at the mercy of america.
at least this is becoming more and more the path america is leading itself into.
I do not believe that the monied interests' influence on our government after this decision could possibly be any more than it already is. If this case means that people wake up then it is a very good thing, much better than say a watered down campaign finance (MF) bill.
The Supreme Court is the number one reason people still vote for Dims instead of progressive third parties like the Greens. Had B.O. mentioned corporate personhood in his speech instead of appealing to people's xenophobia, I might start to believe he is something more than a corporate shill. With his education I do not believe that he does not understand the real issue. He was just doing more fear mongering.
False friends are still worse than known enemies. Let the Republicans have the courts.
I agree with everyone on these comment pages that says we should do something about it instead of complaining. I am willing to anything that 199 or more other people agree to do. I like the idea of running a bunch of candidates in House races as the People's Party or the Common Dream's Party or whatever. However, I won't do it if it's just a handful of folks or if we cannot agree on the one and only one thing we should do. Note however that no matter what it is that those 200 decide to do, I'm in. If we had a couple hundred and a decent cause or strategy, we'd get some press.
ps I like the Greens but they have been taken over locally in every case that I've ever heard about or been associated with by one or a very small number of folks, often former communists. I don't want anything to do with a top-down organization, even if it's just top-down on the local level.
knowyourbrain, don't hold your breath hoping for some press from the corporate media. They're quite adept at not seeing what they don't want to see.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
I find it ironic that anyone expects congress to actually enact real campaign reform. you will see call girls giving it away first. i have now lived long enough to see my shining examples of change become bloated on the millions in their campaign chests. The once sure young turks have know sold themselves so many times over the only thing they stand for is re-election.
So much to say, but, in summary: We Are Screwed.
It's out in the open now after this ruling the real title of our forlorn country is now officially USA INC. a wholly owned and managed subsidiary of the Fortune 500.
As atty Howard Cosell once said: What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.
I advocated (and still do), that Citizens United had the right to advertise the movie. What is getting lost in the wind here, is that the Supreme Court EXPANDED the original arguments and took the case to a level that even the lawyers bringing suit did not wish to go.
In the broad sense, we should remember that non-profit and public service orgainization ARE corporation, as are unions. Most of us would argue that "certain" organizations, (those WE'RE affiliated with) should have the right to express political opinions right up to and beyond election day. What most of us also agree on however, is that we do not want that right extended to "for-profit" or foreign owned corporations. Or at least, we'd like to see that right severly hobbled.
In our haste, we need to be careful not to toss out the baby with the bath water. I'd hope that we could find a way to divorce corporations from personhood, but still allow them the right to express, within reasons, political speech. And I'd hope that we could agree, that it might be better to have corporations expressing their views openly, where all can see, rather than behind closed doors with lobbyists. just an opinion.
The real problem is the corruption of the political process by "campaign contributions" as a form of legalized bribery.
Corporate "personhood" is an additional problem. It's like saying a multicellular animal is equal to a single celled animal. But they're so different in scope that the concept of "equality" is difficult to imagine, let alone try to realize.
Considering a corporation as an assembly of persons is inaccurate, because corporate shares are not necessarily in a one-to-one correspondence with individual persons. One person may own many shares ...
....and a corporation may create it's own parents, to wit, a holding company so that there is no liability...
Legalized bribary may come in may forms. I don't necessarily believe that the campaign contribution is the worst of the bribary scenarios. Quid pro quo is alive and well in politics. We're all aware of the revolving door and the ability of governmental agencies to create "regulations with the effect of law", even though it is never really voted on. This is where I see the greatest threat coming from. When Monsanto gets to set the agricultrual agenda for four years, and Phizer gets to head the FDA, the people lose.
To me, the real issue here is that the court became an "activist" agency and expanded the original arguments of the case. All Citizens United wanted was the acknowledgement that it had the right to advertise it's movie. I still take that stance. BUT, the court decided to make it a case of unlimited corporate speach, that the corporation (defined as a "person" in Black's Law Dictionary) has the same rights and privledges as biological human citizens....
hmmmm, ya know, as I was typing that last sentence, it occured to me that perhaps the wording might be changed, by ammending the Constitution, that "citizens" have the right to free speech, vice 'people'.... have to mull that over....
Death to Tyrany and Corporate Personhood!