SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Danielle Greene and Jennifer Vassil attend a rally calling for an end to corporate money in politics and to mark the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, at Lafayette Square near the White House. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
As Trump Readies Pick, 70% of Democrats--and 67% of Republicans--Want Supreme Court to Overturn Citizens United
"Senators take note: big majorities want the next Supreme Court justice to favor limiting the amount of money corporations can spend on political campaigns."
Jul 03, 2018
While much of the attention of advocacy groups, lawmakers, and the media has rightly centered on grave concerns that President Donald Trump's next Supreme Court pick could vote to eliminate abortion rights, a Daily Beast/Ipsos poll published Tuesday found that "the most galvanizing issue" for Americans of both parties is whether Trump's nominee will curb the vast and corrupting influence of corporate money in politics.
"They are likely to get just the opposite: perhaps the most pro-money-in-politics court in history."
--Alex Tausanovitch, Center for American ProgressAccording to the new survey, 70 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of independents oppose the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling--which unleashed a flood of big business cash into the political system--and said they want Trump to nominate a justice who would limit corporate spending in politics.
Overall, 64 percent of respondents said they want Trump to choose a justice who will rein in unlimited corporate political spending.
Justice Anthony Kennedy--who Trump is now tasked with replacing after the judge announced his retirement last week--authored the widely denounced majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, in which he asserted that corporate donations "do not give rise to corruption."
Mocking Kennedy's opinion in a piece published following his retirement announcement, The Intercept's Jon Schwartz argued, "Kennedy might as well have written, 'We now conclude that the sky is green, and everyone in America will agree that that's definitely true.'"
Recent survey data has found that a large majority of Americans most certainly don't agree with Kennedy's conclusion that unlimited corporate political expenditures do not corrupt politics. As Common Dreams reported, a Pew Research Center poll published in April found that 67 percent of Americans believe that government is now run by a few powerful special interests.
But while members of both parties may want Trump to nominate a justice who is willing to take on the corporate money that has drowned out the voices of ordinary Americans, Alex Tausanovitch of the Center for American Progress argued on Tuesday that the available evidence--such as the list of candidates Trump is reportedly picking from--suggests "they are likely to get just the opposite: perhaps the most pro-money-in-politics court in history."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
While much of the attention of advocacy groups, lawmakers, and the media has rightly centered on grave concerns that President Donald Trump's next Supreme Court pick could vote to eliminate abortion rights, a Daily Beast/Ipsos poll published Tuesday found that "the most galvanizing issue" for Americans of both parties is whether Trump's nominee will curb the vast and corrupting influence of corporate money in politics.
"They are likely to get just the opposite: perhaps the most pro-money-in-politics court in history."
--Alex Tausanovitch, Center for American ProgressAccording to the new survey, 70 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of independents oppose the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling--which unleashed a flood of big business cash into the political system--and said they want Trump to nominate a justice who would limit corporate spending in politics.
Overall, 64 percent of respondents said they want Trump to choose a justice who will rein in unlimited corporate political spending.
Justice Anthony Kennedy--who Trump is now tasked with replacing after the judge announced his retirement last week--authored the widely denounced majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, in which he asserted that corporate donations "do not give rise to corruption."
Mocking Kennedy's opinion in a piece published following his retirement announcement, The Intercept's Jon Schwartz argued, "Kennedy might as well have written, 'We now conclude that the sky is green, and everyone in America will agree that that's definitely true.'"
Recent survey data has found that a large majority of Americans most certainly don't agree with Kennedy's conclusion that unlimited corporate political expenditures do not corrupt politics. As Common Dreams reported, a Pew Research Center poll published in April found that 67 percent of Americans believe that government is now run by a few powerful special interests.
But while members of both parties may want Trump to nominate a justice who is willing to take on the corporate money that has drowned out the voices of ordinary Americans, Alex Tausanovitch of the Center for American Progress argued on Tuesday that the available evidence--such as the list of candidates Trump is reportedly picking from--suggests "they are likely to get just the opposite: perhaps the most pro-money-in-politics court in history."
While much of the attention of advocacy groups, lawmakers, and the media has rightly centered on grave concerns that President Donald Trump's next Supreme Court pick could vote to eliminate abortion rights, a Daily Beast/Ipsos poll published Tuesday found that "the most galvanizing issue" for Americans of both parties is whether Trump's nominee will curb the vast and corrupting influence of corporate money in politics.
"They are likely to get just the opposite: perhaps the most pro-money-in-politics court in history."
--Alex Tausanovitch, Center for American ProgressAccording to the new survey, 70 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of independents oppose the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling--which unleashed a flood of big business cash into the political system--and said they want Trump to nominate a justice who would limit corporate spending in politics.
Overall, 64 percent of respondents said they want Trump to choose a justice who will rein in unlimited corporate political spending.
Justice Anthony Kennedy--who Trump is now tasked with replacing after the judge announced his retirement last week--authored the widely denounced majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, in which he asserted that corporate donations "do not give rise to corruption."
Mocking Kennedy's opinion in a piece published following his retirement announcement, The Intercept's Jon Schwartz argued, "Kennedy might as well have written, 'We now conclude that the sky is green, and everyone in America will agree that that's definitely true.'"
Recent survey data has found that a large majority of Americans most certainly don't agree with Kennedy's conclusion that unlimited corporate political expenditures do not corrupt politics. As Common Dreams reported, a Pew Research Center poll published in April found that 67 percent of Americans believe that government is now run by a few powerful special interests.
But while members of both parties may want Trump to nominate a justice who is willing to take on the corporate money that has drowned out the voices of ordinary Americans, Alex Tausanovitch of the Center for American Progress argued on Tuesday that the available evidence--such as the list of candidates Trump is reportedly picking from--suggests "they are likely to get just the opposite: perhaps the most pro-money-in-politics court in history."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.