So I'm wondering - might Wisconsin make it more likely Citizens United will be overturned?

[calimary]

Assuming the outcome in Wisconsin (as of this writing, anyway) is as bad as we're hearing so far, I'm wondering if those results make a far stronger and more compelling case for overturning or otherwise nullifying Citizens United.

If Barrett had been victorious, could it have sent the implicit message that - "hey, come what may, we prevailed. They threw everything at us including the Goliath of Citizens United, and all the money in the world didn't buy them this election" or "money can't buy me guvs" or something like that. "They threw Fort Knox at us and we stood our ground." Which means there's less of a sense of urgency to get Citizens United to be overturned.

Now, we have one big, fat, swollen, pus-oozing, blood-covered Exhibit A to introduce to the American public - about WHY Citizens United is SO damn destructive to the American system of democracy. That if you have enough money you really can buy elections. That the level playing field that's supposed to be what America's all about - you know, "all men are created equal" and all that - is so obscenely UN-level as to be practically vertical!

I would hope that our side can avoid a severe funk and get to work - overturning Citizens United, whether it's through the Supreme Court being forced to revisit it, OR through state-by-state amendments to the Constitution. Because if we don't, money will rule baldly and nakedly, from here on.

Maybe THIS Was what kkkarl rove was talking about when he spoke about a "permanent CONservative majority" in America. Where they have all the money and the last fundraising stronghold of the Democratic Party and liberals and progressives, the unions, are soon to go on life-support. Where our side is simply unable to compete any longer. As someone else posted here - it may not make any difference if the old white racists are dying out. As long as their side has unbridled access to all the money, that's the ballgame.

I dunno - maybe I'm just rambling because this is so upsetting to me.

What do you think?

And thanks in advance!

[Indydem]

1. Why exactly would the same SC revisit their decision.

CU is the law of the land until we amend the constitution (not happening) or 3 or 4 decades pass and the next generation of SC reexamines it.

[BlueDemKev]

2. Not a chance....

...especially if Romney wins in November, it will only increase the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

[tex-wyo-dem]

3. Well, as far as your OP title...

I hope you're right, but I wouldn't count on it. The super-wealthy just have too many resources and control too much to allow CU to be challenged seriously. Aside from the media reform acts in the 90's that allowed huge consolidation of media outlets and, thus, control by a few corporations of the message, CU has been their greatest coup.

I'm one who believes that things happen for a reason...the steady power grab by the wealthy that's been going on for the last 20 - 30 yrs is now coming to a head. If Rmoney wins in November and is followed by the expected Draconian policies of austerity and breaking down of the social contract, I see massive social disorder in our near future that will make Occupy look like a quaint little protest.

[sweetapogee]

4. questions to ponder...

Do the 1% have more votes than the 99? Is Occupy bigger than citizens united? Did the million signatures on the recall petition result in a million votes for democracy? Did Dems get their monies worth in this recall? Could this recall actually been a puke plot to take the focus off their "real" agenda?

[dmosh42]

5. Hopefully. you're right!

[davidpdx]

6. Sadly I don't think what took place in Wisconsin will have any effect

The Republicans have every incentive to continue blocking any legislation to replace the overturned law or a constitutional amendment and as someone else pointed out the SC is not going to review a case they just issued a ruling on.

The better question is: If the Citizens United case had gone the other way would Walker would have won?

[HopeHoops]

7. Citizens United is an oxymoron - it's Corporations United.

[former9thward]

8. CU had nothing to do with Walker.

CU was about federal elections. It does not apply to state elections. Under Wisconsin law Walker could raise as much money as he could.

[calimary]

11. Maybe not...

http://digg.com/newsbar/Politics/focus_amy_goodman_thank_citizens_united_for_scott_walker

[former9thward]

12. Your link goes to a donation page.

Don't know where the story is.

[calimary]

13. Odd - I just tried it and it works.

http://digg.com/newsbar/Politics/focus_amy_goodman_thank_citizens_united_for_scott_walker

[former9thward]

15. Now it goes to the story.

They must have been doing something with their website when I tried it earlier. The author brings up CU but she does not say how it applied to Wisconsin. She cites a Minnesota law that has nothing to do with Wisconsin elections. Maybe because she is from the UK she doesn't know the difference. Wisconsin has a law allowing people being recalled to be able to raise as much money as they want. CU would not have affected Walker no matter how it turned out.

[Doctor_J]

9. Bring yourself to reality

that will help a lot. We are soon going to be faced with two choices - either live in an honest-to-god fascist state, or wage a serious revolution. No courts, legislatures, or law enforcement are going to help, period. You need to get ready to fight, or learn to love living in Nazi Germany. This is not, in any way going to get any better while we continue to play by the rules created by corrupt sociopaths.

[calimary]

10. You know, sometimes I think that's finally what it's going to take.

I don't know what else will work at this point.

Our dear adorable DEBBIE was pretty damn useless. I used to think she was great.

[calimary]

14. Btw - I've been reading some awfully depressing analysis of Wisconsin

and how it appears the Dems snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because they squandered the Wisconsin uprising and misfired on the populism that had bloomed - and then was allowed to fade.

http://www.nationofchange.org/wisconsin-and-left-1339040522

http://www.nationofchange.org/was-walker-recall-effort-wrong-fight-1339050295

http://truth-out.org/news/item/9661-the-silver-lining-in-walkers-victory

It all indicates we're in for some rough times if the bad guys keep harnessing "populist anger" and we don't, and frame us as the elites who don't give a damn, and we don't reframe them aggressively.

And I saw a few mentions of (paraphrasing) WHERE was the civil disobedience? WHERE was the general strike - that was actually talked about back during the cold weather months last year when people occupied the capitol building? Why did that message somehow get diluted and its strength sapped away? I'm growing more fearful - not less. I'm not sure the best kind of thinking is in play on our side.

(snip)
“There is also the Chris Hedges’ “Death of the Liberal Class” argument, which says what he conceptualizes as the “liberal class” is dead and has lost its legitimacy among the United States’ citizenry. Another way to refer to the “liberal class” is to call it the “liberal elite.” This argument is far more compelling and complex than the Frank argument. Hedges posits that long ago, liberal elites abandoned the rank-and-file of the working class, though they have continued to, in a hollow manner, speak on behalf of it. Because an untold number of people feel abandoned by liberal elites, its void has been filled by an organized and outraged right-wing populist front, argues Hedges. Hedges argues that Wall Street Democrats like President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama serve as Exhibit A of the liberal class. I would take that a step further and say so too did Democratic Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett.

Then there’s the Noam Chomsky argument, which in most ways mirrors the Hedges argument, but directly addresses the question of the Tea Party. In a speech he gave in Madison, WI in April 2010, he stated, “Ridiculing Tea Party shenanigans is a serious error, I think. It would be far more appropriate to understand what lies behind them and to ask ourselves why justly angry people are being mobilized by the extreme right and not by forces like those that did so in my childhood, in the days of formation of the CIO and other constructive activism.”

What Happened to the Left?

Emma Goldman had it right when she stated, “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” Labor and the left in Wisconsin committed suicide when it demobilized a legitimate grassroots movement and turned it into an electoral campaign. It has been a long, slow death. Grassroots activists with righteous indignation gave up their agency to do that which was deemed “acceptable” to the powers that be, namely the “Union Bosses” and the Democratic Party apparatchiks. Why was a general strike never considered? Why not creative tactics to “kill the bill,” Act 10, the reason for the “Uprising” and recall to begin with? How’d this all morph into what it’s morphed into?

In the main, the left has failed to understand that what populist right-wing activists hate more than anything else is the Democratic Party and unions, two pillars of what Hedges defines as the “Liberal Class.” Their hatred is justified, given that, as Hedges points out, these institutions abandoned working class people long ago. Thus, the left confused real grassroots power with the Liberal Class and are now paying the consequences.

(snip)

These snips are from the article "The Silver Lining in Walker's Victory" - which, upon reading the whole thing, tells me there really isn't much of a silver lining. Not for our side. I'm really getting worried. I don't think our side gets it. And I'm growing fearful about November.

[Doctor_J]

16. This has little to do with a lot of subtleties

when we take back the media, by whatever means are necessary, we'll quickly restore democracy in the country. When it comes time to fight, the targets will be very easy to find.