They never stop trying

To take over the world, do they?

Citizens United, Take Two

The Supreme Court case that could help corporations keep their massive election spending secret.

— By Stephanie Mencimer

This week, congressional Democrats are crafting legislation to undo the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United, which allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections. At the same time, the legal genius behind that case will be asking the court to take a whack at another long-standing pillar of campaign finance transparency: state disclosure laws. Call it Citizens United, take two.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Doe v. Reed, a case from Washington state that looks at whether the public disclosure of referendum petitions violates signers' First Amendment rights to privacy, free association, and free speech. While important on its own, Reed is also a warmup for cases coming down the pipeline in California and Maine over whether disclosing the names of campaign donors violates free speech rights by exposing contributors to harassment and other unpleasantness. Together, these cases form a backdoor assault on one of the most accepted tenets of clean elections: that the public should be able to see where the money is coming from.

Newt for president in 2012?

Oh, do. Please!

Why do we do this to our politicians?

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

Couldn't we change our Constitution and/or the rules and have a 'no confidence' vote instead of impeachment, and have somehow a faster campaign time? Our news media won't know what to do with themselves the day after the election.

You cannot use the military for political purposes.

The Republicans blame Obama for trying to use the troops for political purposes. Or not. Or that he tried to but the Pentagon said no. Or the Pentagon said no before he visited with the wrong staff. With or without cameras. Or something:

The Obama campaign [] announced that it had decided to cancel the visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, saying that it would be "inappropriate" to make such a visit as part of a campaign trip.

The McCain camp has nonetheless been using Obama's canceled trip to insinuate that he's anti-troops. "Barack Obama is wrong," McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers said in a statement yesterday. "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."

But it turns out that the Pentagon did in fact tell Obama that in this case, it was not only "inappropriate," but against DOD rules, for him to conduct the visit with campaign staff.

"We have longstanding Department of Defense policy in regards to political campaigns and elections," Pentagon spokesperson Elizabeth Hibner told me. "We informed the Obama staff that he was more than welcome to visit as Senator Obama, with Senate staff. However, he could not conduct the visit with campaign staff."

After being told this, the Obama campaign announced yesterday that it had decided it was "inappropriate" to make the visit as part of a campaign trip.

Mullen addressed the dangers of mixing the military and politics here earlier:

The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the United States approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

“Keeping our politics private is a good first step,” he added. “The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”

I had misunderstood and Bryan of Why Now? put me straight with this explanation in comments:

This isn't a change; this is what should have been happening. When you are identifiable as a serving member of the US military, you are not allowed to engage in any political activity. The rule goes back to the Civil War.

The Hedgemony has been enforcing the rule selectively against anyone who disagrees with them, but it applies to partisans of either side.

No one who worked for me ever knew who I voted for in elections when I was serving. There are no campaign signs on military bases.

This shouldn't be happening, and Mullen knows it, and is concerned about it. Politics and religion have no place in the military. Do what you want off-base, off-duty, and out of uniform, but not when you are identified as a member of the military.

Even McCain agreed using Petraeus for political fundraising was wrong.

So when is using the military for political purposes a good thing? What do the politicians want when they pose with the military? To connote this?



Hoping some of that machismo will rub off?

Do they want to imply this?



Or to suggest that having served in the military suddenly makes you a leader and a supporter of the troops? Even if you're not:



Is this why politicians love parades?:



And love to talk about 'the romantic side' of war?



Even though they actually have little or no understanding what it is like to be in the military:



And have no concept of what their political actions result in:







And often do not listen to anybody except those who parrot back what they want to hear:



And mock those who earned their honor:





And think the military is there to fulfill their every wish?









Ignoring the inevitable results:



Because someone who has never been in combat thinks wearing the uniform will make him look manly, fearless and like a leader:



Oh, wait, that's not the one of Georgie taking charge, THIS is the one...

The Deciderer Commander Guy in costume?



And stopping a ship just before it arrives at port, turning it around and pretending to fly in on a jet? And then use the military as a backdrop for one of the lamest military speeches of all time?



And finally... aren't elected leaders asked to use the military ONLY for necessary actions, and always with a plan and an exit strategy?:





Which is why we have Congress be the ones to declare war:



We want thoughtful politicians who weigh all options, all possibilities, all outcomes:





Update: 8/4:

Voting

Jim Yeager of skippy the bush kangaroo talks about his vote:

i don't require wall-to-wall, or blog-to-blog (for that matter), coverage of all this incessant and irritating fundraising, campaigning, fundraising, polling, fundraising, triangulating, fundraising, celebrifying, fundraising, tut-tutting, fundraising, preaching to the choir, and god-f#*k%#g-damned fundraising. i've already placed my bets -- the dems across the board, even though they suck. that's all there is to it, and any liberal, libertarian, green, or progressive purist who doesn't like it can kiss my freakin' ass.

Exactly.

This is just an historically common shift

And so, must be good for the Republican party. Really. Honest. They meant to do that:

Fundraising for Republican campaign organizations lags. That is strikingly so in the House, where the party committee spent more than it raised in each of the past two months, reported only $1.6 million in the bank at the end of August and a debt of nearly $4 million.

Democrats reported $22.1 million in the bank and a debt of slightly more than $3 million.

Candidate recruitment has been uneven, particularly in the Senate, where Republicans must defend 22 of the 34 seats on the ballot next year. Democrats boast top-tier challengers for GOP-held seats in Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota and Oregon.

[snip]

After a long turn in power in Congress, LaHood and other Republicans say the change in fortunes is partly the result of historical cycles. "The American people like a change," he said.

At the same time, President Bush's approval is stuck in the mid-30s and the Iraq war remains unpopular with the public.

Nor have the ethics woes that plagued the party in last year's elections abated. Corruption investigations swirl around Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens and California Rep. John Doolittle. To the particular distress of party leaders, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct last summer in an airport men's room sex sting operation and has yet to make good on an earlier pledge to resign.

Stevens and Doolittle deny all wrongdoing, as does Craig, who has asked a Minnesota judge to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea.

Polls, too, chart the decline of the Republicans.

A recent Gallup poll reported that 59 percent of those surveyed have an unfavorable impression of the Republican Party. By a margin of 47-42 percent, they said Democrats will do a better job of protecting against terrorism and military threats. Asked which party would better maintain prosperity, the majority preferred the Democrats, 54-34.

Awww.... Let me give you some conservative compassion: