Unlimited campaign expenditures “impair” the democratic process, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told senators Wednesday, urging Congress to amend the Constitution to allow “reasonable limits” on election spending.

John Paul Stevens (age 94) was appointed to the Supreme Court by Eisenhower in 1975 and retired in 2010.  Stevens, a critic of the court's decision in the Citizens United case (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010) testified today on campaign finance at the The Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing on campaign finance law, the first congressional hearing since the Supreme Court ruling earlier in the month that struck down aggregate limits on campaign contributions in April. 

“While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech,” Stevens said. “After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglaries -- actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment.”  

Justice Stevens is correct.  So long as big money controls our election process those elected will be pawns of big money.  The losers will be the average voter.  It doesn’t matter if it is George Soros or the Koch Brothers, money is not speech.  This current Supreme Court was wrong on both campaign funding decisions.  

I miss John Paul Stevens on the Court.

Just one day more...

Fremont, Neb., has implemented a new licensing scheme aimed at keeping illegal immigrants from living in the small city of 26,000 people. The Associated Press reports the new law requires anyone who wants to rent an apartment or home in the town to acquire a $5 occupancy license after filling out a form declaring themselves to be in the country legally.

Fremont is situated 30 miles northwest of Omaha and residents there first approved similar restrictions in 2010. Those laws were put on hold pending legal challenges. Amid the controversy the City Council of Fremont gave voters a chance to vote again on the licenses. In February 60 percent of voters reaffirmed their desire for the regulations.

A Nebraska district court blocked the first law, according to NBC News, but that decision was overturned by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals.

As it stands now, only the U.S. Supreme Court could strike down the controversial restrictions.

The Mexican Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) has filed an appeal to get the case in front of the high court. The organization would like to see the law struck down.  (Associated Press;  NBC News)

Back in 2010 when this town passed the original ordinance, specifically meant to keep Mexicans out of the community, I wrote a letter to their Chamber of Commerce expressing my disgust with their ordinance.  I did so because we occasionally shopped in Fremont.  In fact, I had purchased three vehicles there, including the 2006 pickup we still own for towing our RV.  When the dealers contacted me soliciting my business I told them I would no longer purchase from them or do business with them so long at their racist ordinance was in place.

Now the town has doubled down and the spineless city council has done nothing to stop the implementation of the ordinance.  One can only hope the MALDEF is successful in their legal appeal.  Nebraska is already backwardly conservative, but this type of ordinance is blatantly racist.  And to borrow a phrase from fellow blogger Carolyn to describe the town of Fremont...  rat bastards.

Just one day more...

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) includes a section entitled “The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program” which is intended to help pay health insurance costs for retirees who are not covered by Medicare.

When Congress enacted the health care law in 2010, it appropriated $5 billion for the temporary reinsurance program.  The goal was to subsidize employers’ costs for workers who retire before they become eligible for Medicare.  Hundreds of employers applied - many were corporations. (Associated Press)

However, what is intended to be a health insurance program for workers has actually turned into another taxpayer subsidy for big corporations.  Not only that, but the loudest (and richest) critics of the Affordable Care Act have grabbed up a large portion of the funds.

Among them is Koch Industries, controlled by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, who spent millions of dollars opposing the ACA (and most anything the Obama administration does).  Government records show that the Koch brothers took $1.4 million in early retiree subsidies, all the while working for the repeal of the ACA

But, the Koch brothers are not alone.

Other companies that steer most of their political donations to Republicans [trying to repeal the ACA], and the early-retiree subsidies they received, include: Pfizer Inc., $23 million; GlaxoSmithKline, $14 million; Southern Company Services, $7 million; Lockheed Martin Corp., $4 million; CSX Corp., $2.2 million; KPMG LLP, $1.4 million; and Deloitte LLP, $1.2 million; United Parcel Service, $37 million;  Union Pacific Railroad, $9.7 million;  Altria Client Services Inc., $11 million;   AT&T, $213 million .  (Associated Press)

Not only are these companies at the public trough, they are the worst form of hypocrites, taking money from the ACA all the while undermining it.

Damn corporate pigs.

Just one day more...