A "Wayne's World" Editorial: National Security Threatened By Supreme Court Decision?

I've been holding my tongue publicly about the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United, trying to find just the right words to express my outrage. No more am I mute.Though countless others have already analyzed and pontificated all sides of the main question, several questions bubble to the surface for me. Here are four interrogatories that came to mind right off the bat:

First, how is it that members of the Supreme Court majority in the Citizens United case - including Chief Justice Roberts - have preached "judicial restraint" and "honoring precedent" and "strict construction" of the Constitution for years and years, even testifying to Senate confirmation panels that such philosophy was their pole star, but in this case have become the activist court that they have heretofore demonized? Not only did the slim majority of the Court undo long-standing precedent going back 100 years to the days of Teddy (not Franklin) Roosevelt, but it ventured beyond the questions presented to it by the underlying Circuit Court. And I'm not the only one who noticed: Among millions of people were Steve Ford of the Raleigh News & Observer, who said:

Now, [Justice] Kennedy and his four like-minded colleagues had strained for reasons to disregard those precedents. That approach was the essence of over-the-top judicial activism - the bane of conservatives except when it serves their purposes.

Hypocrisy, thy name is collectively Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas.

(Coincidentally, the first letters of their surnames spells out exactly what type of Court opinion this was: It was a STARK contrast with precedent and judicial restraint.)

Second, how is it that Newt Gingrich and other conservative and ultra-conservative commentators, pundits, and Congressmen can say with a straight face, as they have already, that the Citizens United decision "levels the playing field" for citizens? Give me a break. The "citizens" they speak of are not individuals, but corporations. Yes, as an attorney, I know all the arguments and legalisms regarding corporate personhood, the 14th Amendment, et al. But levelling the playing field? No way. The vast super-majority of Americans cannot contribute the maximum to political campaigns. If and when they do contribute, it's most often in small amounts. Corporations, on the other hand, by virtue of this court decision, may dip into the millions and billions in their corporation treasury and engage in political activity with reckless abandon, and make unlimited contributions well above what the average John and Jane Q. Citizen could ever do.

And, on top of that, the decision presently leaves the door open for corporate executives to direct corporation monies to political campaigns with no input from shareholders. (And then there are the corporations that are not publicly traded, but privately held.) If anything, the Supreme Court didn't level the alleged "playing field" ... it tilted the field such that it resembles the Titanic, tip first, just before it sank into the Atlantic.

Third, what happened to the compelling state interest to prevent actual corruption or the appearance of corruption? A significant number of state attorneys general (including my Attorney General, Roy Cooper) addressed that very question in their joint amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. The Supreme Court majority chose to ignore them and the fight against corruption. Picking up the Citizens United baton and carrying it further, like-minded conservative members of Congress feign concern by alluding to more instantaneous campaign finance reporting as the antiseptic to corruption. Even if you learn that your cause or candidate is being outspent $100 million to $1 by corporate cash (as opposed to contributions from individuals, live persons) and you learn about it instantly through online campaign reporting, what good will it do in stopping the appearance of corruption, of elections being bought and sold, particularly when those same corporations may very well own the news media which would normally be watchdogs for this sort of thing?

Fourth, why did the Roberts court and its Republican members make a decision that some persons say could threaten national security? By virtue of its broad decision, the Supreme Court's conservative majority may have very well opened the floodgates to foreign countries and foreign corporations - and terrorists? - attempting to buy American elections. (Why aren't there any conservative commentators frothing at the mouth on this? Speaking of froth, where's Dick Cheney?) Where are the folks who say national security and homeland security should be considered first and foremost? We've already seen companies and corporations go abroad and re-locate outside of the USA. But more than ever we've seen foreign interests come here and set up their own corporations. (Think China, for example.) The Court's decision, made in a way to upend the American political system in 2010 and 2012, may have put American elections up for sale to the enemy.

On a long ago post here at my Wayne's World blog I wondered what would Thomas Jefferson do if he surveyed America's political landscape today.

I suspect that if the Sage of Monticello knew about this Court's Citizens United decision, Jefferson would be quite angry.

# # #

(c) Wayne Goodwin. All rights reserved. Disclosure: Goodwin serves as President of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a North Carolina nonprofit think-tank fighting for good government, an enlightened electorate, and fundamental fairness in campaigns.

GOP Insurance Commissioner Candidate Upsets NC Firefighters

Eighth Congressional District Democrats and other readers of the Wayne's World blog should find the following post of interest because it impacts the 2008 elections in a major way.

9/1/08

REPUBLICAN INSURANCE COMMISSIONER CANDIDATE ODOM OFFENDS NC FIREFIGHTERS: GOP Faux Pas Helps Democrat Wayne Goodwin

Last week in Winston-Salem the NC State Firemen’s Association held its 121st annual conference in tandem with the 76th annual meeting of the NC State Fire Chiefs Association.

As part of his actual job, Wayne Goodwin presented a Department of Insurance (Office of State Fire Marshal) update. Goodwin’s brief update was strictly to be about department legislation and official OSFM matters, and he was to be introduced only in his current role.

However, leaders of the NC State Firemen’s Association reported that immediately before the Winston-Salem program began they received an intense call from the campaign of John Odom, Republican candidate for Insurance Commissioner. Odom demanded “equal time” as Goodwin. When told that the conference was non-political and that Goodwin was only there as part of his State job (as he had for years), Odom’s campaign refused to back down. The Association granted him a few minutes to speak to the joint conference as a result.

According to firefighters and fire chiefs in attendance, the Odom campaign’s rudeness and unacceptable politicizing of the conference are considered major errors on Odom’s part. From many reports Odom actually cost himself significant votes by forcing himself into the non-political meeting.

Consequently, Odom gave his opponent, Wayne Goodwin, an even bigger boost from firefighters statewide.

“I believe Republican John Odom owes the firefighters and fire chiefs of North Carolina a huge apology,” said Wayne Goodwin. “Our hometown heroes deserve respect, and the Odom campaign’s actions during this conference are unacceptable,” said Goodwin. Goodwin is the Democratic candidate for Insurance Commissioner and currently the Assistant Commissioner of Insurance and Assistant State Fire Marshal.

Goodwin has been individually endorsed for Insurance Commissioner by Paul Miller, Executive Director of the NC State Firemen’s Association; and many firefighters and fire chiefs across North Carolina.

# # #

As folks used to say in Latin, res ipsa loquitur, which means the above "speaks for itself." Eighth Congressional District and all NC voters are encouraged to visit www.WayneGoodwin.org for more information about the Goodwin campaign for Insurance Commissioner.

Wayne Goodwin Became First 2008 Insurance Commissioner Candidate to Refuse Special Interest Money: Challenges Dem, GOP Opponents To Do the Same

For Immediate Release
March 4, 2008

Wayne Goodwin Today (March 4th) Becomes First 2008 Insurance Commissioner Candidate to Refuse Special Interest Money: Challenges Dem, GOP Opponents To Do the Same

(Raleigh) – Wayne Goodwin, Democratic candidate for North Carolina Insurance Commissioner, is the first candidate for the post to notify the State Board of Elections that he will opt into the newly-established Voter-Owned Election Program. In other words, Goodwin is refusing PAC money, large dollar contributors, and special interest money as he begins his publicly-financed campaign.

“I have been a longtime proponent of elections where the emphasis is on ideas, character and ability, and not on money and special interests,” said Goodwin. “My record is proof-positive of that.”

Goodwin filed for Insurance Commissioner on Friday, February 29, and quickly raised the initial funds allowed in phase one of the pilot program established by the legislature.

In the late afternoon of Tuesday, March 4th, only two business days since filing for office, Goodwin personally submitted his official “Declaration of Intent” form to Kim Westbrook Strach, Deputy Director of Campaign Reporting at the State Board of Elections. He also presented a check from his campaign made out to the State Board due to his having raised more contributions than necessary.

Goodwin will now seek to become a certified publicly-financed candidate. That will require a minimum of 750 registered North Carolina voters to make small-dollar contributions of between $10 and $200 (personal checks or money orders only) that exceed a total of $29,000 and no more than $238,000. Participating candidates must complete their fundraising for the entire 2008 campaign by May 6.

“I challenge my fellow candidates to opt into this program. I challenge them to show that they are not beholden to special interests and the insurance industry,” said Goodwin.

Goodwin is presently the Assistant Commissioner of Insurance – which regulates the insurance industry - and a former 4-term member of the House of Representatives.

“We need an Insurance Commissioner focused on keeping insurance rates reasonably low, as well as ensuring a competitive insurance market here in North Carolina,” he said. “The voters are not well-served if candidates spend their whole year fundraising instead of meeting and hearing from voters across the State.”

# # #

Contact: (910) 997-1301; or, gwaynegoodwin@gmail.com

The Goodwin Committee, P.O. Box 1654, Hamlet NC 28345