One Last Word on Citizens United
It’s clear that opinions on Citizens United are pretty hardened, but if you don’t agree with my take, perhaps you’ll listen to Glenn Greenwald, whose post on the subject is definitive.
by Mark of New Jersey · January 24, 2010
It’s clear that opinions on Citizens United are pretty hardened, but if you don’t agree with my take, perhaps you’ll listen to Glenn Greenwald, whose post on the subject is definitive.
Mark of New Jersey
Mark is a Founding Editor of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, the predecessor of Ordinary Times.
August 11, 2009
December 9, 2018
October 1, 2012
Leon Black plans to step down as chief executive of Apollo Global Management Inc. after an independent review revealed larger-than-expected payments to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein that it nevertheless deemed justified.
The months long review by Dechert LLP found no evidence that Mr. Black was involved in the criminal activities of the late Epstein, who was indicted in 2019 on federal sex-trafficking charges involving underage girls, according to a copy of the law firm’s report that was viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
In its report, Dechert found the fees that the billionaire had paid Epstein were for legitimate advice on trust- and estate-tax planning that proved to be of significant value to Mr. Black and his family. Mr. Black paid Epstein a total of $148 million, plus a $10 million donation to his charity—far more than was previously known.
(Featured image is "Did You Say 'Bribe'?" by ccPixs.com and is licensed under CC BY 2.0)
Comment →When I was a kid, I heard a handful of references to "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" but I had always assumed that the song was a parody. Like, it was a much more bitter "I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-to-Die Rag" from Country Joe and the Fish.
I've recently had an opportunity to listen to the song a couple of times and was inspired to do research into it and, as it turns out, it was written in 1942 as a response to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I've listened to three or four versions of the song but have concluded that this version is my favorite. I hope you like it too.
(Featured image is "5.56 Match Ammo" by mr.smashy and is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0)
Comment →January 25, 2021
January 25, 2021
A Reverie On Failure Part 2: The Trials Brought by Love Thy Neighbor
January 24, 2021
Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition
January 25, 2021
Buy American: President Biden’s Executive Order
January 25, 2021
Sarah Huckabee Sanders Running for Governor of Arkansas
January 25, 2021
January 25, 2021
January 25, 2021
January 25, 2021
The Politics of Survival: Putting Yourself in a Box
January 19, 2021
Impeachment: A Briar Patch With No Rabbits
January 23, 2021
President Biden’s Inauguration: Day One for Forty Six
January 20, 2021
Fox News Shouldn’t Have Called Arizona When They Did
January 21, 2021
January 20, 2021
What I found odd about Glenn’s piece is that he starts out saying he’s “deeply ambivalent” about the ruling, but then goes on with seeming relish to (in his mind I guess), utterly demolish both the legal case — including the arguments that money isn’t speech, and the question of the relevance of corporate personhood — and the practical case for the ruling, saying that he doesn’t think things could get worse (though he at least allows he may be failing to think of ways it might). What’s he ambivalent about?Report
He thinks there are weaknesses in the Court’s decision as a matter of law dealing with the decision to pursue the broad holding over the narrow holding. I think he’s right in this respect. He’s also sympathetic to the issue of corporations holding too much political power, as am I. But that’s different from saying that the decision is going to be apocalyptic (it’s not) and from saying that the free speech legal arguments underlying the decision are wrong (he thinks they’re right). Since most of the attacks on the decision have focused on the latter two points, he explains why those attacks are misguided.Report
Ah, the activism. Good point, he does mention that. Doesn’t make a very big deal about it, though. If he was truly deeply ambivalent about that aspect of it you’d think he’d dwell on it a bit more. But yeah, it’s a pretty convincing piece on the law.Report
Well, actually on second look, he undermines that reservation as well:
Report
He’s not talking about the stare decisis issue when he’s referencing his reservations about the decision, but rather the general judicial principle that courts should render their decisions on the narrowest grounds possible. In essence, he’s saying that stare decisis is not a very good reason to oppose a decision when the original precedent was wrong to begin with, but that a court’s choice of broad grounds over narrow grounds is a definite problem.Report
Fair enough. I didn’t see where he said that or gave it enough emphasis to convince us he’s really troubled, but I’ll take your word for it.Report
It’s nice to know that there are still liberals who believe in stuff other than temporary partisan advantage.Report
It just occurred to me now but part of the reason I dislike campaign restrictions is because they’re really, really bad at their job.
Penalties exacted upon the candidates hold the candidate accountable for behavior they may or may not be responsible for and create incentives for sabotage from the opposition. The flip side of unfairly punitive measures are measures that leave few incentives to break them.
When campaigns and donors get fined for violations it isn’t much better. If you’re sufficiently wealthy it might be cheaper for you to simply break the rules and pay the fine than to follow the rule in the first place. Most importantly, however, is the problem that you can’t take back an offense. If one breaks the law by promoting a candidate at a polling place, you can’t go back in time and remove the endorsement, you can only punish the violator after the fact. All in all it creates a system whereby the wealthy and powerful are either insufficiently deterred or are but at the cost of crippling the less wealthy and powerful. Moreover, if you break the rules there’s a very good chance that you’ll actually benefit from doing so assuming your competitor doesn’t and its sufficiently close to the election (or far enough away) not to have traction going into the election.Report