The SuperRich in America Have Become ‘Untouchables’ Who Don’t Go to Prison / By Amy Goodman and Matt Taibbi, Democracy Now, April 15, 2014 posted on alternet,org
Chris Hedges: We’re Losing the Last Shreds of Legal Rights to Protect Ourselves from Oligarchy By Chris Hedges, Truthdig, posted on Alternet.org, May 5, 2014
Long Before McCutcheon, Conservatives Invested in Pushing Our Legal Culture Rightward http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/11/long-before-mccutcheon-conservatives-invested-in-pushing-our-legal-culture-rightward/
A Blistering Dissent in ‘McCutcheon’: Conservatives Substituted Opinion for Fact http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/02/a-blistering-dissent-in-mccutcheon-conservatives-substituted-opinion-for-fact/
Long Before McCutcheon, Conservatives Invested in Pushing Our Legal Culture Rightward by Joshua Holland, Bill Moyers.com April 11, 2014
A Blistering Dissent in ‘McCutcheon’: Conservatives Substituted Opinion for Fact By Bill Moyers, billmoyers.com, April 2, 2014 Excerpt…The court’s four-member minority issued a blistering dissent, written by Justice Stephen Breyer. He charged that the majority’s “conclusion rests upon its own, not a record-based, view of the facts.” Its legal analysis is faulty: It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake. It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign. Taken together with Citizens United, Breyer writes that McCutcheon “eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”…But perhaps the dissent’s most withering criticism of the ruling is that, as in Citizens United, it was decided according to the majority’s beliefs, rather than the factual record. In the past, when evaluating the constitutionality of campaign finance restrictions, we have typically relied upon an evidentiary record amassed below to determine whether the law served a compelling governmental objective. And, typically, that record contained testimony from Members of Congress (or state legislators) explaining why Congress (or the legislature) acted as it did….If we are to overturn an act of Congress here, we should do so on the basis of a similar record….