Grayson: Court's Campaign Finance Decision "Worst Since Dred Scott"
Alan Grayson, the first-term Democratic congressman from central Florida, really didn't like Thursday's Supreme Court decision legalizing unlimited corporate spending in election campaigns. "It's the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case," he told me last night. In Dred Scott, Grayson explained, the Supreme Court decided that neither slaves nor the children of slaves could ever be US citizens. In Citizens United v. FEC, decided Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled "that only huge corporations have any constitutional rights," Grayson said. "They have the right to bribe, the right to buy elections, the right to reward their elected toadies, and the right to punish the elected representatives who take a stab at doing what's right."
I wrote a profile of Grayson for the most recent issue of Mother Jones. You can read the whole thing here.
Like independent campaign finance reform groups, Grayson saw this decision coming. Last week, he filed five bills that he hopes will help counteract the effects of the Court's decision. On Wednesday night, he launched a website, savedemocracy.net, to rally support for these measures. On Thursday morning, he delivered over 10,000 signatures from a web-based petition to the Supreme Court. After the court issued its decision, he introduced a sixth campaign finance reform bill.
The Court's decision creates serious problems for the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA), a bill that Grayson co-sponsored that would institute publicly financed elections. "The funding from FENA is a drop in the bucket compared to what the oil companies might spend to defeat representatives who don't want to drill everywhere," Grayson warned. "It's a drop in the bucket compared to what Wall Street's prepared to spend to reward those who vote for bailouts and punish those who won't." The Supreme Court has "created a whole new problem.... that really isn't addressed by that bill," Grayson said, while emphasizing that he still supported FENA because it is "a step in the right direction, but not sufficient."
Via Grayson's website, here are the six bills "and what they aim to accomplish,":
- The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
- The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
- The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
- The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.
- The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.
- The End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act (H.R. 4487): This bill requires the approval of a majority of a public company’s shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company’s products or services.
The fifth measure has already gained the support of Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chair of the House Judiciary committee, Grayson said. Grayson hopes the committee might hold a hearing on that bill sometime in the next 30 days. Grayson circulated his proposals among his colleagues on Thursday. He has a decent record with winning support for populist ideas— last year he signed up over 100 cosponsors for Texas Republican Ron Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
Still, what Grayson could really use is the support of President Barack Obama, who has slammed the Supreme Court decision and promised a "forceful" legislative response. Grayson's bills would certainly qualify. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has reported that the White House and other Hill Democrats are seriously considering three options for responding to the decision, including one that bears a resemblance to Grayson's sixth bill—requiring shareholders to approve of independent political expenditures. When we spoke, Grayson also voiced support to another idea Ambinder says is under consideration—a "Stand by Your Ad" requirement. As Ambinder describes it, "The head of an insurance company would be forced to say, 'I'm Honus Wagner, the CEO of Acme, and I stand by this ad.'" Grayson emphasized that such a move would be consistent with the Supreme Court's decision today, which explicitly allowed Congress to pass tough disclosure requirements.
Comments
Like it or not, if you
Like it or not, if you possess half a brain you can see it only levels the playing field. Of course the dems don't like it! But don't-cha worry, you radical messiah will soon be attempting to change the constitution.
Hey idiot, don't you know that Dems have corporate masters, too?
You're so pleased that something might give your favorite football team a slight advantage that you don't care that it is also bringing the stadium down on your head.
WOW!!! Neo-Cons ain't that bright!
"Hey idiot, don't you know that Dems have corporate masters, too?
Submitted by leafsong1 (not verified) on Fri Jan. 22, 2010 7:03 AM PST.
You're so pleased that something might give your favorite football team a slight advantage that you don't care that it is also bringing the stadium down on your head."
Again....WOW!!! This is the EXACT same inept and dismissive type of argument used (and believed) by sheep following "The Light." OF COURSE they have masters, but theirs are more closely aligned with citizens and less with corporations. The inept intelligence shown in this post is clearly illustrated by the fact that doing nothing is what will bring down the stadium, while working to strengthen the foundation MAY be able to resurrect it. Definitive destruction or possible salvation? Hmmm....which to choose?
All that glitters is not gold. Perhaps, instead, you will look to your "Lord" you are so allegedly fond of and cherish his teachings: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". Or is that crap just socialist propoganda put into the bible the the earliest of liberal elites?
what are you using the other
what are you using the other half of your brain for?
The constitution does not
The constitution does not represent corporations. It represents the people. This ruling is unconstitutional and reveals the activist underpinnings of the current SC. Also, only in America would someone qualify BHO as a "radical." You sound like an extreme right wing bumpkin.
Yes it does...
So you are saying that a US corporation should not be protected by the constitution? Are you saying that a corporation should be allowed to be searched and seized without due process or warrant? For instance, you think the FBI should be able to walk into any corporation at any given time and search it without a warrant?
Of course no government
Of course no government entity should be able to send its people into a corporation's offices and sieze the documents of any of the corporation's workers on a whim.
However, here's the problem. A corporation is a collection of individuals that can amass vast amounts of resources including money that the average person can't amass. Its an unfair advantage thats made worse given that the heads of these corporations have an easier time accessing our elected public officials...again, a privilige not afforded to most of us average folk. So yeah, it scares us "libtards" greatly. The decisions of our public officials should only be influenced by us and their set of beliefs and base of knowledge.
Btw, I just have to ask this. Why are you so hell bent on defending someone who would do everything in their power to take every penny you have because their sole purpose is to maximize their profits?
"A corporation is a
"A corporation is a collection of individuals that can amass vast amounts of resources including money that the average person can't amass."
Subsitute Corporation for Goverment and it the same thing. The goverment under Obama, Bush et al are the same. You hit in the head just expand it to the larger cousin to Corporatism, STATISM.
PS business should be profit maximizers......you can always refuse to buy thier product.... ohhhh I forgot I have to buy Health Insurance from Insurance Corp. under the current bills....damn!!!!
"Of course no government"
Dude, you obviously do not understand capitalism, the free market system, or how companies make money. A failing in your education, no doubt.
You express all these concerns about corporations but have no qualms about unions. Strange, very strange.
I suggest you get a library card and read up on basic economics.
It is not at all surprising
It is not at all surprising that a member of the 2% of Americans who own 100% of the nations equity would defend their Wall Street heros. What is greatly amazing is that like 40% of the rest of the public--who own NOTHING except debt would nonetheless risk their first and last drops of blood to defend the right of these giant corporations to keep them teetering just above the poverty line. It demonstrates the brain-washing power of the 'all mighty' dollar. Most Republican Americans (exclusive of the 2%) are more afraid of a single mom having health care for her child then for Bank of America (and others) to control our congress and make the laws up as needed.
Yes, the government should need no warrant to search...
...a corporation. These are permitted entities; they exist because we have created a sub-constitutional legal framework for them. The government can search a corporation, seize a corporation, or withdraw permission for a corporation to do business in the US. Legal protections for corporations take the form of Article II legislation; Congress can give them pseudo-rights or priviledges or protections in order to facilitate a stable business environment. But none of this is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Corporations have priviledges; not rights
Yes, a corporation is a publicly licensed monetary structure with no right to exist or function beyond what the laws establish for it. It is not a constitutionally protected association. It is made of money; not people. It is required to obey all laws governing it at all times, but it is never subject to criminal prosecution. Consequently, its assertions that it is in compliance with the laws should be readily verifiable by law enforcement agents, and the procedures those agents use should be unhindered by corporate secrecy.
not subject to prosecution?
There are some folks from the former Enron doing time that would disagree with you.
corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people, they are made of people. Still as corporations have the potential for immortality and humans do not and corporations lack human morality, being entirely focussed on profit making, therefore there must be limits on corporate power. If corporations were committed to act ethically and not hegemonicly then they would stand in better light today. But they don't they haven';t and they aren't likely to change by themselves, so we The People need to put the hammer down. Crush those corporations who would have the hubris to manipulate democracy and kill the American dream of freedom! Disenfranchise them! Don't buy their stuff! Do everything you can think of that might cost them money, so as to drive them into bankrupt death. Ridicule their leaders! Let ignominious ruin be their lot! Let humans rule corporations not vice versa.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
The laws governing the inception of new corporations expressly grant them "personhood."
All of the hegemony of US corporations has followed from this original wording. Most of these corporations are now global, and so their continued domination of the political sphere is to be expected. But we sure as hell can strip them of the obviously illegitimate rights on our own soil, and thus preserve the soul of America.
They are not elected but I
They are not elected but I would be interested to know what hidden perks they receive from the big Corporations like jet flights and holidays.
The Supreme Court Justices should be investigated just the same as everybody else right back to when the were appointed..
who do you think make up
who do you think make up corporations. People DO.
A corporation is not a who, it's an it
It is not made up of people; it is made up of money. The people just follow the money; they do its bidding. But make no mistake, in a corporation, the money is in charge, not the people.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010
Pages 32-33
A 1
The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S.85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684(1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495(1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v.FCC, 520 U. S. 180 (1997); Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727 (1996); Turner, 512 U. S. 622; Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S. 105; Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115 (1989); Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524 (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767 (1986); Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6 (1970).This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button, 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936). Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection "simply because its source is a corporation." Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion) ("The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster" (quoting Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not "natural persons." Id., at 776; see id., at 780, n. 16. Cf. id., at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
Precisely why we need a
Precisely why we need a simple one sentence constitutional amendment making clear that constitutional right devolve only to NATURAL PERSONS (legalese for HUMANS)...
"With the exception of the freedom of the press, all of the rights, privileges and immunities established, created, conferred, enumerated, recognized or confirmed by this Constitution, or which are held by any court of competent jurisdiction to arise directly or indirectly from the provisions hereof, shall obtain solely and inure exclusively to the benefit of natural persons."
Contact your Senators, Congresspeople and state legislators (3/4 vote of the states is required) and GET TO WORK...
grayson for the leadership of a progressive party
Mr. grayson, join hands with
dennis kucinnich, bernie sanders, weiner, maxine waters, danny glover, michael moore, oliver stone, sean penn, jack nicholson, susan surrandon, jane fonda, ariana huffington, rachel maddow, keith olberman, steve colbert, seymore hirsch, jeremy scahill, amy goodman, jerry brown, etc etc and
start a progressive party NOW!
let the dems and the GOP merge already into a NEO party under obama and get it over with.
let the tea-baggers fight the neos over the leading right-wing party position.
There *is* a progressive party...
There already is a progressive party out there standing up for the rights of actual people in the face of corporate personhood: the Green Party. Several of the folks you mention are already members. Visit www.gp.org to learn more.
Hey Eric. I'm a
Hey Eric. I'm a constitutional lawyer and possess an entire brain. And I hope to God the President uses his State of the Union speech this week to blast the court, attack their awful and indefensible decision, call for a constitutional amendment and ask humans across the political spectrum and all across America to work in their home states to achieve just that.
Level the playing field?!? Who are you kidding? Banks, insurance companies and mega- corporations have almost all the available money in the U.S in their treasuries. Without campaign finance limits on what they can spend on politics, they will fill the airwaves with endless slick ads selling candidates like beer and destroying others who dare oppose legislation they want. Then the game is over.
Twenty-five years ago, I drafted a simple constitutional amendment. It's looking pretty good right now. And if something like it isn't passed soon -- before the coming wave of corporate-sponsored candidates begins to fill up our legislatures and courts, it never will be and the republic will be lost...
-------------------
"With the exception of the freedom of the press, all of the rights, privileges and immunities established, created, conferred, enumerated, recognized or confirmed by this Constitution, or which are held by any court of competent jurisdiction to arise directly or indirectly from the provisions hereof, shall obtain solely and inure exclusively to the benefit of natural persons."
--------------------
Wake up, Eric. Stop listening to Limbaugh, drop the simplistic slogans and hate speech -- and think for yourself. Before you find yourself living in a corporate plutocracy without any voice, rights or future.
death of democracy
I am just astounded at the ignorance and lack of scope of the average American.
I'm moving to Toronto or some other town in Central America.
Eric
Those of us on the left have known for a long time that people like you are entirely willing to destroy this country and everything it stands for in order to gain ground on the few narrow social issues that you are fond of.
Well you did it. Enjoy. Just remember that whatever issue it was that you wanted SO desperately, whatever it was that you thought the right wing would fix, YOU WON'T GET!!!
Notice after 8 years of Bush, 6 of those with a republican majority in the House and Senate, yet no significant anti-abortion legislation.
8 years of Bush and you can have your little pop-guns. Good luck doing anything with it when your job and freedoms are gone and your house is stormed in the middle of the night by police conducting special forces style operations with night-vision glasses, or you entire house gets erased by a hellfire missle, but the official explanation is a "propane leak".
Or maybe you are a worshipper of the "free market". Go ahead. Start your small business now. Maybe a mainstreet shoe store or clothing shop, or something more quaint like a toy store or newspaper. How long do you think it will last?
Or maybe you are a military interventionalist and love blowing up people of color. Well how long do you think the greatest military in the world will last when there isn't a middle class to tax to support it?
So come on Eric, man up. Tell us what was so important to you that you were willing to destroy the country over it?
But quislings like you will always find a way to survive. There will be plenty of you that have no problem licking the boots of the wealthy and brag about how you are a "self made man".
Don't forget George Bush
Don't forget George Bush spoke to GOD and God answered!!
Eric
Eric Prince II, now there's some right wing hero worship. Johnny got his gun.
If you like it not
I agree with you, this SCOTUS decicion will make complete sense only if you possess one half of a brain.
Well, Eric, I see you don't
Well, Eric, I see you don't have half a brain. You're so dense that you don't realize that now your bought and paid for Sens and Reps don't have to listen to you anymore, they will do what the corporations want, the people that paid them to vote a certain way. There will be no fairness for the little guy anymore. Corporations own you now.
And about changing the constitution, this radically changes laws that have been in effect for 150 years. You bitch and moan about "activist judges", well these five judges made a ruling that had no precedence in law. I call that activism.
You're forgetting something,
You're forgetting something, corporations DON"T vote, people do
If I had Bill Gates' money, I
If I had Bill Gates' money, I would form a corporation and sue the state for not letting that corporation vote, and sue the Feds for the same.
Sigh.
Corporations Don't Vote....
Corporations do have to vote when bribery and scare tactics are much easier and more efficient. Your vote doesn' t count in the end when you've been scared out of your wits into joining a Tea Party; you've been fooled and become a tool. Then you vote.....no difference - the outcome has been decided far ahead of time. I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK (no more corporate bribery.....a cold day in hell)!
I want my country back too.
I want my country back too. Socialism doesnt work. Always tried never worked. Obama is a radical socialist and the country is finally telling him where to go. Massachussets is the start. The arrogance of the left will leave them in the minority after the 2010 elections.
socialism works--Sweden for
socialism works--Sweden for one.Social Security-Medicare-Medicaid-Police and Fire depts.These are all funded by all citizens not privatized not to mention the Armed Services.You are brain washed by the Multimillionaires who would love to privatize everything so that the poor can be denied free services and lower the tax on the rich.Lets go back to the 18 Century where there were only the rich and the poor no middle class.Wealthy land owners and serfs.I suppose you think you would belong to the "Gentry"
]Well LOL
Trust Me
Obama is most assuredly not a socialist. I would be a socialist myself if I thought there was a point to being a socialist in this country, and I assure you that I would not align myself with the likes of Barack Obama! However, I know there is no chance of anything (except the military establishment) ever approaching socialism here, so I choose the next best category - which also doesn't not include Obama.
Niether do NewsPapers...
Newspaper companies don't vote either but they spew their bias all the time. Your point is?
You're forgetting, people don't vote; corporations do.
Yes, we all get to pretend to vote. We dutifully fill out our ballots, and then turn them over to a corporation, who then becomes the sole arbiter of precisely what we voted for. Beyond that, the corporate hierarchy also speaks for us through their press and lobbyists. They decide our religious beliefs, and define the difference between fact and fiction in our educational institions. The American people have no role in their own governance at this time, and that is intolerable tyranny.
The problem is while
The problem is while individuals can be smart and rational, people are often groups of frightened and panic stricken animals that will do whatever they are told. The corps are now the ones with most of the power to inform that group with whatever "truth" they want to present.
What the ruling allows is any
What the ruling allows is any one or any association of people who own a corporate entity in the U. S. to spend as much money at they like to influence American election. That means Hugo Chavez can spend 10 million on ads anonymously to unseat Mitch McConnell.
That means China can drop a billion on the U.S. Congress to get better trade options which screw the U.S. worker.
Travesty
Let me get this straight...Up until yesterday There was never a case granting corporate person hood to pieces of paper. The right by corporations to lobby the Government to reddress a greivance has never been granted or littigate in court. Corporations took this right by force. The facts are these, Corporations
Can't be sworn in court,
Can't hold public offfice,
Can't be arrested,
and Can't vote.
When corporations can physically do the above then, they should have the right to lobby. Until then all form of Corporate lobbyists should be banned. Period.
corporations= corpus
The etymology of the word corporation is from the Latin corpus. Literally, the body.
What is wrong here is the, as you say, piece of paper gains all the rights and privileges of a citizen, but in no way can be held accountable for its actions. Now they can buy elections.
AND, you F'n moron conservatives that think corporations should rule the world, you might consider going to work for Wackenhut, or Corrections Corporation of America. I hear they pay around $.30/ hour, but the benefits are great! You get three hot meals a day, and a cell.
F! U!
Would this include the NRA,
Would this include the NRA, Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, NAACP, ACLU, Nature Conservancy, etc? The right and left both do considerable lobbying via corporations. Don't forget that the rights to assemble and associate are not second-tier.
Exactly
As member of the NRA I resent that my colletive voice is restricted immediately preceeding an election. Since I am not rich, the only voice I have is collective.
RE: Exactly
Bravo! Well put!
That is really what this is all about...isn't it? When you are at a large event with a large crowd...a baseball game for example...does the umpire hear anything you are saying to him from the stands? The obvious answer is no. But when the entire stadium chants in unison, you better believe he hears the message loud and clear.
Sheesh! Do you think the
Sheesh! Do you think the liberals would tolerate SEIU and Andy Stern, the person with over 22 visits to the Obama WH, to be denied that privilege? That's laughable. Yet, some people are quite obtuse: they can't understand that a corporation, like a labor union, is run by its officers, and its officers can be called to testify (remember the big 3 before Congress?), these same officers can be tried and incarcerated or fined, just as a corner store robber. Silencing the NAACP, the NRA, the NFL or the AFL-CIO is heinous and should be fought against by every American that believes in the First Amendment.
Fact is, I'm not scared of political discourse coming from any sector, faction, branch, schism, or other entity -- but I am dreadfully scared of any person or group being silenced for any reason, no matter how objectionable I might find their words. Any government that can limit a segment of the population, can when it is convenient to its purposes, silence any and all segments of the population. Lincoln jailed without writ of habeas those who espoused conflicting ideology in the North. Scores of newspapers were shutttered and their presses smashed. You don't think so? I guess they conveniently left that out of your textbook for a reason. It makes him look bad. Do a quick Google search and see if I've exaggerated a word.
Just supplant "corporations" with the "Red Cross" in prohibiting free speech, and you'll have a clearer picture of how awful and vile this prohibition has been.
Let everyone and every entity have their say. The people can sort out who is noble and who is evil, who is deceitful and who is honest. The instant you say, "No they can't!" you lurch toward oligarchy/monarchy/statism or communism. I'd much prefer to suffer the mistakes of voters, on occasion making the wrong choice, than lose my liberty, which is what inevitably follows any vesting of absolute power in a government.
Those guys that staked their life, their liberty, and their fortunes on throwing off the oppressive governance of the British Crown back in 1776 got it absolutely correct -- let everyone be heard. Have you read the First Amendment? Try reading it and then try and justify muzzling any group or person. The second you take the microphone away from any corporation, then it only follows that the same can be denied any synagogue, any church, any farm workers union, any civil rights group. I don't think that is where we want to go, and it is certainly not where the Framers of the Constitution wanted to go. Beat them at the ballot box - or does that idea scare you?
A corporation is not an association of people
It is a monetary structure from which people draw income. It is, by law and custom, a purely profit-making enterprise with none of the non-monetary motivations actual people have. A corporation has no right to exist; Congress could outlaw them all.
"Travesty"
"The facts are these, Corporations
Can't be sworn in court,
Can't hold public offfice,
Can't be arrested,
and Can't vote.
When corporations can physically do the above then, they should have the right to lobby. Until then all form of Corporate lobbyists should be banned. Period."
These same "facts" hold for unions as well.
National Security
Aside from the environmental destruction and the cost to individual (as in individuals not individual businesses) freedoms in this country, what are the implications that this has for foreign companies in the U.S. and multi-nationals influencing policy in ways that are decidedly not in the interests of the U.S. What is to stop foreign interests from opening surogate businesses to advance their agendas? Although I think that this is perhaps one of the most blatant and destructive stabs at the heart of our democratic principles, it seems like a patently stupid decision in terms of national security.
Much has been made of this, but...
...before the ruling there was no restriction on a MNC, which is basically a foreign power, from joining together with other such foreign powers to dominate organizations such as the US Chamber of Commerce and influence US government decisions. This decision merely removes the requirement that foreign powers credibly pretend to be US corporations.
Where are you "tea party"
Where are you "tea party" people now????? Oh, thats right, you are the same group that supported "the patriot act" where you ACTUALLY gave up your constitutentional rights....lets hear some rightous indignation over what the supreme court did here....my solution...send Scalia hunting with Dick Cheney....
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
