The latest hysterical reform effort to push back against the Supreme Court’s pending ruling in Citizens United v. FEC seems like self-satire at first glance.
Oregon campaign finance attorney and Ralph Nader acolyte Dan Meek has channeled FDR in creating a campaign called “PACK THE COURT.” It has a website, www.packthecourt.com, with a 1,067-word manifesto, “ASSAULT ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.”
Meek represents FairElections Oregon, a state advocacy group for stricter campaign finance regulation and taxpayer funded campaigns. He has testified on the organization’s behalf in opposition to campaign finance legislation in Oregon.
A snippet from the “PACK THE COURT” manifesto:
On the national level, the assault on campaign finance reform by the U.S. Supreme Court can be stopped only by changing the Court itself, which is being run by the Republican remnants of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The number of justices on the Court is determined by Congress. Congress can enact a law to change the number, which has been changed 8 times in the past and has ranged in size from 5 to 10. A simple majority in the House and Senate could add two justices, allowing Obama to establish a majority that would uphold the campaign finance laws that are critical to maintaining any semblance of democracy. Will the Democrats in Congress do this? Probably not, because releasing unlimited corporate money would benefit them as well, protecting them against any populist challenges in their primaries or the emergency of progressive minor party candidates. The same court decision would also unleash unlimited union spending to benefit Democrats as well.
At least Meek is more honest than most reformers in directing his anger at not just corporations, but also unions, who would also be free from government speech censorship under a broad Citizens United ruling overturning Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell v. FEC:
… releasing unlimited corporate money would benefit [Democrats] as well, protecting them against any populist challenges in their primaries or the emergency [sic] of progressive minor party candidates. The same court decision would also unleash unlimited union spending to benefit Democrats as well.
Meek also has a, shall-we-say, “interesting” understanding of the Senate’s filibuster procedures:
Apparently, 60 votes is needed only if the proposed action is in the public interest. Anything in the corporate interest takes only 51 votes. Some folks say this is because the Democrats lack courage or are “wimpy.” The problem is not lack of courage; the Democrats and the Republicans are both chosen for office by the big money system.
