Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

- President Obama in his State of the Union address

Images: Some of Japan’s fastest trains—the 500 Series and the 700 Series bullet trains

In the video below, you’ll notice that the United States has fallen behind in providing high-speed rail infrastructure and services when compared to the rest of the world. This is due to several factors. First, when compared to Europe—which has higher population densities—the population of the United States is distributed over a much larger area (although an argument can be made for high-speed rail for this reason). However, the United States is growing—particularly in the northeast, some areas of the west, and some parts of the south—and the cost of petroleum-based fuels are increasing and will continue to increase, so the need for upgraded mass transit is inescapable.

Furthermore, given air pollution and corresponding health care costs, global warming, and the cost of maintaining massive amounts of paved roads, the automobile is an costly and inefficient method of transportation. Nonetheless, the automobile has historically been prioritized over rail services (see the Great American streetcar scandal).

Another reason why high-speed rail is underdeveloped in the United States is that the federal government hasn’t aggressively promoted high-speed rail (although, the Obama Administration wants to update the United States’ rail infrastructure as part oft their economic recovery plan). As a result, the only high-speed rail in the United States is the Acela Express, but it is slower than other high-speed rail services around the world.

There’s a lot of utility in high-speed rail, and there’s a lot of opportunity in the United States for high-speed rail. For example, high-speed rail can compete with air travel, and not only can high-speed rail alleviate congested highways, it’s environmentally friendly, since it produces less carbon than automobile or air transportation. Furthermore, a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that foreclosure rates went down in areas “with good bus or rail service – and so having a car is not required.”

Video: High-speed rail around the world:

In this video, President Obama makes the case for high-speed rail and described the success of high-speed rail in other countries:

On the Net:

1. America 2050
2. How Big Are the Environmental Benefits of High-Speed Rail?
3. Passenger Rail, Low Population Density

—
Photo source for attribution here and here. The authors or licensors of these images do not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Via Earth Observatory

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

On Friday, President Obama debated Republicans in Congress on various issues during an intense Q & A session. During the debate, President Obama demonstrated reasonableness, which I appreciate—and it was the reason why he received my vote. In fact, this morning on “The Chris Matthews Show,”Andrew Sullivan described President Obama as a “reasonable centrist person” but used these words to describe former President George W. Bush: “spent, borrowed, and invaded.” There’s no doubt that Bush II wasn’t a reasonable prudent president. Furthermore, it’s no surprise that Fox News mostly ignored the debate between Obama and Congressional Republicans and even cut “away 20 minutes before [the] end of Obama’s Q&A with House Republicans.” More on the debate via the New York Daily News:

President Obama dove headfirst into the belly of the GOP beast Friday – and left the not-so-loyal opposition bleeding on a Baltimore ballroom floor.

He skewered Republicans for obstructionist tactics, dubious facts and a lack of civility in opposing his domestic agenda, especially health care reform.

“If you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot,” Obama told the GOP issues retreat after unveiling a proposal for $33 billion in small-business tax incentives.

House Republican leaders had tried to score political points by inviting Obama to their lair. Problem was, he showed up.

If you failed to catch the debate, here are some videos to browse through:

Videos:

President Obama’s Speech at the House Republican retreat in Baltimore:

President Obama’s full Q&A at the House Republican retreat in Baltimore:

Highlights:

President Obama schools factually-challenged Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX05) on the budget:

Fox Cuts Away From Obama-GOP Conversation In Order To Get A Head Start On Attacks: He Was ‘Lecturing’

Fact checking via CNN Political Ticker, The New York Times, and The Washington Post

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The economic, environmental, and social consequences of oil sands development in Alberta, Canada, are put into perspective in this fascinating video:

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

I’m reading a long but interesting essay on the negative environmental, economic, and social justice impacts of coal mining in communities of West Virginia. Here’s a snippet from Professor McGinley’s “From pick and shovel to mountaintop removal: environmental injustice in the Appalachian coalfields” (footnotes omitted and emphasis added):

The Essay identifies a troubling paradox: Highly efficient new mining technologies, including so-called “mountaintop removal” strip mining, have resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of well paying jobs while coal production has reached record levels and many coalfield communities remain mired in economic stagnation and poverty.

.       .       .

The Essay exposes the plan and motive of some coal companies to target for extinction some communities located near modern large-scale mining operations. The plan was simple–conduct high intensity mining operations in close proximity to remote communities. When the nuisance conditions created by the mining became difficult to bear, the belief was that those affected would choose to sell out to the coal companies and move away from communities that had been family homeplaces for decades. In at least one area, a major national coal company conditioned its purchase of such homes on the sellers’ agreement to move away and never return to the area for the rest of their lives.

.       .       .

Travelers entering Williamson, the county seat of Mingo County, West Virginia, pass a faded roadsign that reads: “Welcome to the Billion Dollar Coalfields.” The irony of the greeting is hard to escape. Driving into the town which lies in the heart of central Appalachia’s coal-producing region, one sees boarded-up stores and vacant and dilapidated buildings. Discouraging economic data and high unemployment in Mingo and other coal counties of southern West Virginia confirm what the eye sees: The billions of dollars of coal reserves mined from the region have only marginally benefited local people. After a century of mining in the “billion dollar coalfields,” local communities lack funds to upgrade aging schools; tens of thousands live below the federal “poverty line”; and public services such as fire, police, sewage treatment, and libraries struggle to survive on “bare-bones” budgets.

While the economic stagnation of coalfield communities continues, highly efficient coal mines have revolutionized coal mining in Appalachia. Coal production largely from giant “mountaintop removal” strip mines and highly mechanized underground “longwall” mines approaches record levels. How does one account for the pervasive dismal economic condition in a region which could aptly be called the “Saudi Arabia of coal” ?

The answer lies in an understanding of the various forces that have shaped the history of the region. For better or worse, those forces–the coal industry and those who directly profit from mining, state and local politicians, and the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA)–led the coalfields to its present condition. Those same players continue to exert enormous influence, which promises to extend the economic status quo. The paucity of attention given by historians and legal scholars to the legal regime that provided the framework for economic development in the “billion dollar coalfields” provided the im-petus for this Essay. The hope is that the following will initiate a scholarly discussion of environmental, economic, and social justice in a region that for a century has given much more to the nation than its citizens have received in return.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama showed his disapproval of SCOTUS’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. However, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, sitting in front of the President, showed visible disagreement over the President’s remarks.

On the Net:

1. Lobbyists For Foreign Corporations Begin Fight To Ensure Foreign Money Can Influence American Elections

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Through photosynthesis, algae can produce oil. In turn, algae-based biofuel can be used as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels. Fuels derived from algae are an attractive alternative energy source, because unlike petroleum-based fuels, which add trapped carbon dioxide into the atmosphere following combustion, biofuels do not.

However, research suggests that algae-based biofuels have several hurdles to overcome before becoming practical on a commercial scale. For example, proponents of algae-based biofuel argue that this type of biofuel produces less greenhouse gases, but recent research suggests otherwise. From The New York Times:

Proponents of algae oil say that the technology will perform significantly better than older generations of biofuels — that it will produce less greenhouse gas in its lifecycle, that it uses less land, that it can be grown anywhere — bypassing the concerns about competition with food crops that have come to plague corn ethanol.

Some environmentalists say water availability could be a problem for algae to fuel in the desert, though they say the issue has not been explored in depth. But some algae-to-fuel companies are already looking at using saltwater or wastewater — from sources like the Salton Sea — so that they won’t be shipping water to the desert.

.       .       .

Unexpected problems include other algae or microorganisms — borne by the winds or the birds — eating or outcompeting the cultivated algae (“equivalents of weeds,” Melnick says). Temperature fluctuations could range high. There could be too much sun. “All the variables that farmers are constantly exposed to,” Melnick says.

So going from the lab to the field, some strains live and others die. Demattia can brace for some forces — for example, hold off on adding water when he expects rain — and adjust for others, such as through tweaking fertilizer amounts. But some things he cannot help.

“Algae’s a mystery,” Demattia said. “It dies on you, you never know why it died. You just have it die overnight, and you’ll come in and no one will know, even the guys who’ve been doing it for 30 years won’t know what killed it. So there’s still a lot more to learn.”

Algae-to-fuel technology can be carbon and energy intensive. More from Yale Environment 360:

Growing algae for biofuels is an energy-intensive process that can generate more greenhouse gases than the process sequesters, according to a new study. Examining the life cycle of algal biofuels, researchers from the University of Virginia found that the process emits high levels of greenhouse gases because algal production requires using large amounts of fertilizer. Those fertilizers often come from petroleum-based sources, and fertilizers also emit nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, according to the study. The study, published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, said that while biofuel production from crops such as corn, canola, and switchgrass can result in a net carbon dioxide uptake, that is not yet the case with algal biofuels. The paper said that one promising way to overcome the environmental impact of using fertilizers to grow algal biofuels is to produce them with effluent from sewage treatment plants. Proponents of algal biofuels also said it is too early to make firm conclusions about the environmental impact of the technology because it is still in its infancy.

Algae biofuel companies respond to the study in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. From the New York Times:

One industry member said that while the University of Virginia research was conducted in a sound fashion, it was extremely outdated.

“It’s absolutely right if you think of it as last generation algae,” said Riggs Eckelberry, chief executive of the algae biofuel company Origin Oil, based in New Jersey. “But we’ve got to make this stuff viable now.”

One of the challenges to large-scale algae production noted by the paper was the need for large amounts of fertilizer to be added to the water in which it is grown. But Mr. Eckelberry said his company plans to use wastewater in algae production.

“Identifying wastewater is a homerun for algae production, probably the best there is,” he said. “There are lots of nitrates, and algae love dirty water — they can remove toxins, such as medical drugs from that water.”

In response, Andres Clarens the lead author of the study said he used the most recent data that he could, which was about 10 years old. Algae biofuel companies keep their research a closely guarded secret, he said.

He invited companies to share any more recent and relevant data they had with him.

“Everybody talks about the next generation – what is the next generation?” he said. “I’d be happy to model it if somebody produces it.”

He may get what he wishes for – the whole blow-out may result in a partnership.

On Tuesday, Mary Rosenthal of the Algal Biomass Association called him, and if member companies agree to make data available, Dr. Clarens may do a follow-up study.

One project is recycling dairy waste to produce algae-based fuel. From Sandia National Laboratories:

Recently Williams and other Sandia researchers have grown green algae in a 12-by-30-foot greenhouse using a simulated dairy effluent, the nutrient-rich liquid remaining after bacterial digestion of dairy manure. The solids from the digestion of dairy manure can potentially be used to develop fertilizer and feed and the liquid serves as a nutrient source for algae. The algae are typically cultured for several days, followed by harvesting and dewatering, after which the algal oil is extracted. The algae produce lipids, the most useful being neutral oil made up largely of triacyglycerides (TAG) that can be converted to biofuels.

Williams said that growing algae for biofuels eliminates many problems associated with traditional biofuels.

“The current generation of biofuels [starch- and sugar-based ethanol and oil crop-based biodiesel] rely on the use of commodity crops and therefore compete for use of food crops, primarily corn,” she said. “Also, they are very farm-intensive and use a lot of good farming land, fuel and fertilizer inputs and fresh water.”

Algae ponds, on the other hand, can be put on marginal land and grown with non-fresh brackish water produced from energy mineral extraction (petroleum, natural gas, coal-bed methane), or nutrient-loaded wastewater from municipal and agricultural sources. The Southwest has the potential for being a leader in manufacturing this new type of biofuel because “it has lots of barren land that can’t be used for anything else, lots of sunlight and a lot of marginal water,” Sandia researcher Brian Dwyer said.

.       .       .

Williams anticipates that the Sandia research will have the potential to provide new jobs and economic development to New Mexico, the seventh largest dairy-producing state in the nation. The state’s dairy industry employs more than 5,000 people and has an annual impact of nearly $2.7 billion.

The 340,000 dairy cows in New Mexico produce large quantities of manure and nutrient-rich effluent water that represent a significant waste management problem and regulatory expense to the state’s dairy industry. These and other agri-industrial waste streams represent a valuable and underused feedstock for recycling of energy, biofuels, reusable water and other coproducts. The DOE Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap currently in draft suggests the use of non-fresh water sources, including agricultural effluent, for algal biomass production. Besides providing a source of non-fresh water and the recycling of needed nutrients, the use of these waste streams in an integrated biorefinery will help to alleviate disposal regulatory requirements on dairies and other confined animal feeding operations in New Mexico and the broader United States.

Images via Randy Montoya

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Apparently, so-called judicial activism can work both ways, and it was blatant in the recent SCOTUS decision—Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. From McClatchy Washington Bureau:

The 5-4 conservative majority decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission that struck many decades of law and precedent will likely go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s most egregious exercises of judicial activism.

In spite of its imperative to rule on “cases and controversies” brought to the Court, to defer to the legitimate lawmaking authority of the Congress and other democratically elected legislatures, and to not allow simple disagreement with past judicial decisions to overrule precedent (stare decisis), the Roberts Court ruled unconstitutional the ban on corporate treasury funding of independent political campaigns.

The Court reached to make new constitutional law by ordering a re-argument of a minor case that itself raised no direct challenge to the laws and precedents that it ultimately overruled; dismissed the legitimacy of laws enacted over a century by Congress and state legislatures; equated the free speech protections of individuals and corporations in spite of countless laws and precedents that insisted on meaningful differences; and provided not a shred of evidence of new conditions or harmful effects that justified imposing their own ideological preferences on a body of settled law and social tradition.

The decision makes a mockery of Chief Justice Roberts’ pious statements during his confirmation hearing that he embraced judicial modesty and constitutional avoidance. His concurring decision to respond to his critics was defensive and lame.

The importance of Justice Anthony Kennedy as a swing vote, via The Canadian Press:

It comes down to this at the Supreme Court: If you’ve got Justice Anthony Kennedy on your side, you can pretty much do what you want. Without him, you’re the author of an angry dissent.

Thursday’s decision to strike down restrictions on corporate campaign spending more than 60 years old was the third time in nine days that the court divided 5-4, with liberals on one side and conservatives on the other.

.       .       .

The rulings demonstrate the extent to which ideology – not fidelity to precedent or a particular interpretation of the Constitution – is the driving force on the court.

Despite opening the flood gates to corporate influence, there are several, perhaps unintended, side-effects from the recent SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. First, there’s worry over foreign influence in elections. From Jason Linkins (also see excerpts from the dissenting opinions below):

A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. In 2006, USA Today reported: “Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies also have a sizable presence in running power plants, chemical factories and water treatment facilities in the United States.” It was also reported that, “Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying.” In 2008, it was reported that foreign ownership of U.S. companies “more than doubled”between 1996 and 2005. To get a fix on the spending power, consider this: “The total receipts of foreign-owned companies were $1.7 trillion in 1996 and just $39 billion in 1971.”

I’m not trying to stoke zero-sum xenophobia, here. The idea of foreign persons or entities seizing — by judicial fiat — such a dramatic advantage in terms of influence over the American people seems to me to be, as they say, less than ideal.

Second, the same legal theory might be applied to direct contributions to politicians. From BusinessWeek:

Emboldened by the ruling, critics of campaign finance regulation may now challenge the ban on direct corporate donations to candidates.

“If all speakers are going to be treated the same, why wouldn’t a corporation be able to make a contribution to a candidate just like a PAC or an unincorporated association or an individual?” said James Bopp Jr., a campaign finance lawyer who has fought limits on political money.

The decision also may strengthen political party groups that seek to end the McCain-Feingold ban on unlimited contributions to parties from labor and corporations.

Certailny, the SCOTUS ruling is a perceived win for republican interests (there may be unintended consequences). The ruling is also a direct consequence of former George W. Bush’s attempt to turn the Court conservative. From a letter to the editor at the Los Angeles Times:

Corporations and their lobbies already call most of the shots in Washington, but this latest ruling adds to the Republican philosophy that the purpose of government is to benefit the rich and powerful.

Republicans have finally succeeded in turning the Supreme Court into an arm of the Republican Party. This spells the end of democracy in America.

Certainly, the conservatives on the High Court have limited free speech for human speakers in the past, so it’s somewhat perplexing, or maybe not, that certain justices (i.e., Scalia) expanded speech of corporations or the scope of speech (although the dissent argued that the “case concern[ed] how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering.”). Despite the departure from legislative and judicial precedent, the government can place restrictions on speech. From the dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (footnotes omitted and emphasis added):

Yet in a variety of contexts, we have held that speech can be regulated differentially on account of the speaker’s identity, when identity is understood in categorical or institutional terms. The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees. When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily raise constitutional problems. In contrast to the blanket rule that the majority espouses, our cases recognize that the Government’s interests may be more or less compelling with respect to different classes of speakers, cf. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 585, 103 S.Ct. 1365, 75 L.Ed.2d 295 (1983) ( “[D]ifferential treatment” is constitutionally suspect “ unless justified by some special characteristic” of the regulated class of speakers (emphasis added)), and that the constitutional rights of certain categories of speakers, in certain contexts, “ ‘are not automatically coextensive with the rights’ “ that are normally accorded to members of our society . . .

Furthermore, some democratic politicians might  feel that their speech is restricted since any lambasting on their part might result in a backlash of corporate financing to overthrow or counter the criticism. However, the ruling may have unintended consequences for Republicans as well. From The Star-Ledger:

But who really knows? These things often have unintended consequences. Ben L. Ginsberg, a long-time lawyer for GOP conservative causes, counsels caution.

“It’s going to be a wild, wild West” in future campaigns, he warned, “with a lot more voices and the loudest voices are going to be corporations and unions.” In the process, the power of both parties, Republicans as well as Democrats, could be diminished as corporations and unions run their own campaigns and give less cash to either party.

Why run money through the parties — the middle men — when corporations are free now to spend all they want on their own more tightly targeted campaigns for issues and candidates? Conceivably, they could now spend enough to dominate party primaries, denying Democrat and Republican leaders the power to nominate preferred candidates.

Via the “pro-corporate conservative wing of the Court,” the ruling certainly impacts environmental interests or issues too. Via Kate Sheppard for Mother Jones:

Cathy Duvall, political director of Sierra Club, warned in a statement that the ruling will unleash a “tidal wave of special interest cash and influence peddling” on the electoral process. The decision, Duvall noted, will give even more power to major lobbying groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, that regularly oppose environmental regulations.

.       .       .

Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said the decision will “open the floodgates for oil companies like Exxon.” He noted that Exxon Mobil’s PAC spent just over $811,000 on the 2008 election, but would now be free to pour massive sums into political advertising—”potentially drowning out the voices of the majority of Americans who support investing in clean American energy and reducing harmful carbon pollution.”

Of course, not everyone is outraged by SCOTUS’s ruling. I would argue that this opinion via the San Jose Mercury News ignores the fact that corporations legitimately have an interest in politics, since politicians make policies that impact corporations. It’s why we have lobbyists:

The assumption that corporations, especially publicly held ones, will now plunge headlong into the partisan political arena doesn’t fit with what most of us should know: Corporations are led by people who are generally conservative in thought and deed. They think twice before they do anything in the political arena. Spending shareholder money in a desperate effort to install right-wing office holders is not how most corporate types I know are likely to behave.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who isn’t shy about criticizing some SCOTUS decisions and has shown disappointment that her rulings were being “dismantled” since leaving the Court) had these thoughts on the ruling (via the New York Times):

“Gosh,” she said of last week’s campaign finance bombshell, “I step away for a couple of years and there’s no telling what’s going to happen.”

Justice O’Connor was giving the keynote address at a Georgetown law school conference devoted in part to how Thursday’s campaign finance decision,Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, will affect judicial elections.

Her answer: “In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon.”

Despite SCOTUS’s ruling, Congress can still pass remedies to counter it. Here is a list of potential remedies via Nieman Watchdog:

Congress and the SEC have the power to make sure that corporate political spending reflects the will of the shareholders, not just management. There is absolutely no dispute that boards of directors have a fiduciary obligation to represent the interests of the shareholders, although, unfortunately, since boards are chosen by management, this has been honored more in its breach than its observance.

As a partial solution, the SEC and the FEC should promulgate rules before the next election to ensure that decisions on corporate political spending represent the desires of the shareholders. This could be done by requiring boards of directors to poll shareholders before making any specific political expenditure. Boards should be required to vote on each such political expenditure and publicly reveal every member’s vote. Ads paid for by a corporation or group of corporations should be required to reveal who was paying for it and perhaps, like a candidate, the Chairman of the Board should be required to appear and say the board approved the ad.

In order to prevent money laundering, bundling the cost of such ads under a group’s name should be prohibited so the public really knows who paid for the ad. Shareholders who disapproved of such expenditures should be allowed to get from the corporation their proportionate share of the expenditure. This wouldn’t have much effect if an individual wanted his money, but it would have an effect if pension funds and other large investors demanded their money.

In addition, foreign owned or controlled (5 percent or more?) corporations should be prohibited from spending money to influence American elections.

Congress ought to explicitly prohibit corporations from deducting the cost of such ads from their income so that taxpayers are not subsidizing them.

Congress should prohibit corporations that are government contractors from spending money on such ads. Such spending would seem to fall within the same rationale that the Court recognized in continuing to prohibit direct corporate contributions to politicians or upholding the Hatch Act.

The dissent argues that the issue isn’t about corporate speech but how the corporation may fund electioneering (emphasis added):

The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

Next, the dissent contrasts corporations from human speakers and stresses, “Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.” Emphasis added:

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

The dissent illustrates how the pro-corporate conservative wing of the Court departed from legislative and judicial precedent:

The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 209, 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed.2d 364 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209-210. The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 110 S.Ct. 1391, 108 L.Ed.2d 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 127 S.Ct. 2652, 168 L.Ed.2d 329 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 123 S.Ct. 2200, 156 L.Ed.2d 179 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 107 S.Ct. 616, 93 L.Ed.2d 539 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U.S. 197, 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed.2d 364, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182, 101 S.Ct. 2712, 69 L.Ed.2d 567 (1981).

More quotes from the dissent:

The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.

.       .       .

The Court operates with a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’ most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics. It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well.

.       .       .

Going forward, corporations and unions will be free to spend as much general treasury money as they wish on ads that support or attack specific candidates, whereas national parties will not be able to spend a dime of soft money on ads of any kind.

.       .       .

In the end, the Court’s rejection of Austin and McConnell comes down to nothing more than its disagreement with their results. Virtually every one of its arguments was made and rejected in those cases, and the majority opinion is essentially an amalgamation of resuscitated dissents. The only relevant thing that has changed since Austin and McConnell is the composition of this Court. Today’s ruling thus strikes at the vitals of stare decisis, “the means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion” that “permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.” Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 265, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986).

.       .       .

So let us be clear: Neither Austin nor McConnell held or implied that corporations may be silenced; the FEC is not a “censor”; and in the years since these cases were decided, corporations have continued to play a major role in the national dialogue. Laws such as § 203 target a class of communications that is especially likely to corrupt the political process, that is at least one degree removed from the views of individual citizens, and that may not even reflect the views of those who pay for it. Such laws burden political speech, and that is always a serious matter, demanding careful scrutiny. But the majority’s incessant talk of a “ban” aims at a straw man.

Political cartoons found here and here

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Thank former President George W. Bush for Chief Justice John Roberts and unpaid-for policies—two big gifts that will keep on giving.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Can you find the marmots?

See more animal camouflage and plant camouflage.

—
Photo source for attribution here and here. The authors or licensors of these images do not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::