The Citizen's United Case- The Nightmare Scenario May Be Coming True

“The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind,” Justice Stevens wrote. “And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.” ......from Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Steven's dissent in the Citizen's United v Federal Election Commission, printed in The New York Times, January 21, 2010.

This blog first mentioned the Citizens United case on February 5, 2010. It was a case that slipped through the cracks of media scrutiny in those weeks preceding the Super Bowl. To bottomline it, the conservative wing of the United States Supreme Court ruled for the majority, 5-4, that the government may not ban spending by corporations on political campaigns. Essentially the court said that corporations had the same constitutional rights as private citizens, and to try to regulate corporate spending and activities in political campaigns was a violation of their First Amendment Rights.

Dissenters, like Justice Stevens, saw the ruling as a danger to subvert democracy.

Few listened in January- most media ignored the story or put it on a back burner. But Keith Olbermann didn't. I posted this entry about Olbermann's Special Comment on the Citizen's United ruling in February

Below, please watch his Special Comment.....a prophecy that appears to have come true, with tens of thousands of dollars, some of which come from foreign multi-national corporations by way of the US Chamber of Commerce, finding their way to finance dozens of ads attacking Democrats nationwide.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Now let's fast forward to the present. Think Progress broke the news of the possibility of the US Chamber of Commerce funneling foreign money to produce ads designed to defeat Democratic House and Senate candidates in this November's mid-term elections.

Denial is all around, but there seems to be more evidence of possible wrong doing. US election laws say that if campaign contributions are used to produce political ads, the donors must be named.....and they must adhere to laws governing campaign contributions.

Below, Olbermann leads with the story on his October 13 show, with Think Progress' Faiz Shakir.

Think Progress » Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads

It looks like it's official.

The government of the United States is up for sale. If the reports are true that the US Chamber of Commerce is funneling tens of millions of dollars into the midterm elections- much of it from foreign corporations- then the fears of a takeover of our government by foreign entities isn't crazy paranoid talk, it is a distinct possibility.

How does that affect you and me? Here's one hypothetical scenario.

If fictional Corporation Z based in Germany (a nation that has a national health system payed by tax dollars) doesn't want to pay a benefits package to it's workers in Kalamazoo,MI, they can funnel big bucks into the campaigns of friendly politicians in the Michigan, for example. In this world of quid pro quo these "friends" would do their best to help Corporation Z's bottomline. That might mean downsizing the plant in Kalamazoo and sending those jobs to Germany, or finding ways to get the plant closed entirely under the mantle of "free enterprise".

But the real bottomline is that most of the rest of the industrialized world plays under a different set of rules that protects jobs in their nations, while we see plant closures and job loss, and protection of corporate interest rather than of the jobs of those people who actually do the work.

What in God's name ever happened to the concept of economic patriotism?

Read more, from Think Progress.

Think Progress » Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads