[Last week], Public Citizen hosted a rally at the state capitol to raise awareness about the U.S. Supreme Court re-hearing Wednesday of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Representatives from Common Cause and Clean Elections Texas joined us, despite the rain and ominous weather. Many thanks to our good government brethren for their support.
The Daily Texan was also on hand, and reported the following:
Public Citizen, a national nonprofit public interest group, organized the rally because officials said they fear a ruling in favor of Citizens United could possibly give corporations more leverage is raising funds for political campaigns.
…The group is concerned this case will allow corporations to spend freely on political advertising that will influence voters.
“The court has signaled that they would like to overturn the precedent of these cases,” Wilson said. “If we allow unlimited corporate ‘free speech,’ then everyone else will be drowned out.”
Well said, Wilson.
But we weren’t the only ones to show up. Andy and David dressed up as corporate fat cats REAL, BONAFIDE corporate boogeymen came to protest our protest! Can you believe the gall? But don’t worry. From the looks of their faces, they didn’t get the turnout they were hoping for either. Poor corporations, it rained on their parade…
Check out this video to prove we ain’t lyin:
Our new president, Robert Weissman, also had a few words to say about the Citizen’s United case:
Fate of Democracy Now in Supreme Court’s Hands
Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
Overturning the court’s precedents on corporate election expenditures would be nothing short of a disaster. Corporations already dominate our political process – through political action committees, fundraisers, high-paid lobbyists and personal contributions by corporate insiders, often bundled together to increase their impact, and more.
If the court rules to free corporations to make unlimited campaign expenditures from their treasuries, the election playing field will be tilted massively against candidates advancing the public interest. Candidates and elected officials will be chilled from standing up for what’s right. And officials who take on the narrow interests of particular corporations – over a facility siting decision, or a specific subsidy, for example – will face the risk of retaliation in the next election.
Corporations don’t vote, and they shouldn’t be permitted to spend limitless amounts of money to influence election outcomes.
