This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Kentucky Politician Files Lawsuit Claiming A First Amendment Right To Accept Bribes
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
It’s a rare and precious moment when a politician does something which perfectly demonstrates what he or she really thinks about democracy and power. This is one of those times.
From the Intercept:
The Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts in elections. Now politicians in Kentucky are claiming they have a Constitutional right to receive gifts from lobbyists.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Republican Kentucky state Sen. John Schickel, along with two Libertarian political candidates, are suing to overturn state ethics laws, claiming that the campaign contribution limit of $1,000 and a ban on gifts from lobbyists and their employers are a violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The lawsuit notes that lobbyists and the employers of lobbyists are prohibited by Kentucky law from inviting legislators to parties, offering gifts, or paying for food for legislators. “This infringes on the legislator’s, lobbyist’s, and employer of lobbyist’s right to freedom of association, and freedom of speech,” Schickel claims in the suit.
Kentucky’s ethics laws were passed in 1992 after an FBI investigation exposed a number of local politicians selling their votes.
Corporations have increasingly turned to new interpretations of the First Amendment as a legal strategy.
Bond-rating agencies that gave high grades to toxic mortgage-backed securities claimed in court that doing so was their First Amendment right. Lobbyists have argued that food-labeling laws undermine the meat industry’s right to free speech. And similarly, AT&T recentlyargued that net neutrality violates the ISP industry’s First Amendment rights.
Two words: Banana Republic.
»
- 23141 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
and both Clintons will testify on his behalf.
John Schickel is ... "A retired law enforcement officer, he served as a Florence police officer for over a decade, the Boone County jailer from 1987 through 2001, and a U.S. marshal for the Eastern District of Kentucky from 2002 through 2008."
I guess you just get used to certain perks in a long career 'enforcing' the law.
When in a banana republic, eat bananas. Somebody give that monkey a banana.
Two words: Sick Society.
Any time the word libertarian begins with a capital "L" you know it's party politics as usual.
in a truly "libertarian" society, there wouldn't be much reason to bribe politicians since the govt would be confined to such a narrow range, it would be pointless. They would have very little power, nothing like today.
And what a bunch of fuckin' amatuers. Just set up a charitable foundation that only uses a small % of its income for actual charity, have people donate money to it. Thats how the pros do it.
Surely this Supreme Court would approve this after seeing how they decided the "Citizens v United" case.
Newsflash.........industries don't have rights under the constitution, only individual people do so those arguements are moot.
I was thinking more like 3 words:
John Lewis list
I think this is why our illustrious predecessors invented the "tar" , "feathers" , and "rail" thing
The tar and feather thing usually ended with the feathers being lit on fire.
The tar and feather thing usually ended with the feathers being lit on fire.
I agree - nothing should inhibit open bribery - after all, this is America! Seriously - has anyone ever done a cost analysis on how much we spend each year on hiding such transactions? Must be astronomical.
If bribery is legitimized, one of the arguments against transforming to a cashless society gets thrown out the window. No more duffel bags of cash for the local commissioner. Just a quick transfer via zeros and ones.
IF?
Good point. How stupid of me!!!
Hillary part 2.
Truth is what we tell you it is.
If you can marry your half sister then how big of a leap is it to allow accepting gifts from lobbyists?
Too. Fucking. Funny.
He's heard of the Constitution?
Next up: execs fight for their right to trade on insider information
Too funny.
Check out the SEC Form 4 filings before corporate stock buy back announcements.
Heard on NPR a few years ago a 'debate' arguing for exactly that. Couldn't believe such insanity was being aired as a legitimate debate. The guy countering the argument seemed as dumbstruck about it as I was. Stopped listening to NPR altogether at that point though time listening to the tripe had dropped precipitously prior to that from similar bullshit aired on that shit program.
congress, i believe not long ago, did Fight for that right of continued immunity from profiting off insider trading - and Congress Won that fight ! They know how to do this, arrrweeerighttyyright!
Fine, I say allow it as long as their constituents can go ahead and kill them if they don't perform to their constituent's satisfaction....
Its for the children....
That should be covered under free speech too shouldn't it?
People misunderstand the Supreme Court ruling.
Citizen's United was about giving money equal rights. i.e. counterfeit financialized money has the same rights as money earned from productive activities. Since finance money can be generated (a.k.a. counterfeited) at a faster rate than productive money the limits needed to be thrown out.
Otherwise, there would be discrimination against counterfeit finance money within society.
What has always been in the shadows is now in the light of day, that's how corrupt the USA has become. And especially, the Jews don't hide in the shadows like they used to! Welcome to the Jew-SA!
Sometimes we get those English coming into our shops asking if we want to get a equity line of credit on the building, seems like they want the whole god damn town including our farms!
I say to them " if you come back here one more time ya god damn jew, I'll plug this pitchfork into your god damn eye sockets"!
Off with YOU!
i love the American Jewish people and so appreciate their contribution to comedy / humor throughout our past ...
isn't the concern about teh banksterism fiat counterfeiting operation, the ponzi out in the open now for over 5 years, yet the mainlamestream spin keeps that matrix hypnosis in tact ... the obvious pattern of media events scheduled one after another {wow, check the latest winteractionables report on the Aurora Batman shooting!} like a bizzarro world twist of a hollywood soap opera, an "As the World Turns" gone Live, but being directed by some folks themselves in a living within their own construct of worldly existence - and that system involves lots of weapons & "Death Control Systems" as RADMJ would say - and thus the ensuing preponderance of psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies rising
so today the tensions in teh Greater Iraq territory must be intense still ... why do we never, NEVER hear about the Iraq government anymore ? There must be some bad bad bad vibes betweenst DC & them , correct me if i'm wrong ....
The Path to Peace is, simply, Peace
Nobody is infringing on their right to accept bribes. They simply need to face the consequences of their actions which, in the case of bribes, should be (SHOULD be) jail time.
How do you put a corporate person in jail? Equal protection. If we're to have the insanity of citizen's united then this is one of those clear bang-on effects.
I've been waiting to see something like this, not bribery necessarily, put using equal protection as a foil for all sorts of things that are "illegal" for humans but ok for corporate persons to do.
For instance, here in my town humans get fined if they leave their garbage can at the curb for more than 24 hours. But businesses can leave theirs out permanently. Under equal protection, that can't be. Just a small example.
Citizens United v. FEC was about free speech in advertising, not about campaign donations. Read the case.
Luckily for corporations though....
No death penalty for the "corporate person" either....
Well at least this douche is honest about wanting to be bought off.
Why else would a person spend multiple salaries campaigning, or
forego a much larger salary in the private sector if there wasn't a big
payday to be had.
Why not? Corporations are people and they do it. Equal protection under the law. Done deal.
Look, all day every day we decide to forego certain of our rights under certain circumstances. Sure, we could do thus and such, but we won't, because that would be wrong. There are times that to exercise one's rights to the fullest actually puts one in the position of wrongdoing.
Shit, even Tricky Dicky Nixon knew what he was doing was wrong. The modern sociopath utterly lacks any self-awareness. Another sign of decline, perhaps.
The Constitution seems to provide easy comfort to a lot of dumb sociopaths who can't get the hang of religion.
Swmguy - From a dry perspective of cycles it is generational dynamics. Generations that have it easier take shortcuts and yes, sociopaths in such a cycle become more abundant because of that reason.
I am 45. I remember the greatest generation. After decades of dealing with things they had two sides to them. One was cynical crustiness. They would do it right and end enforce that on us young uns. Then during down time it was like a switch, they would really lighten up, tie a buzz on and have fun.
I pledged allegiance to a Republic and the ideals it stood for. Boy do we (as in all Americans) have our work cut out for us.
Just had to put the Land of Confusion video below by Genesis. Three minutes long. If you have never seen it, it is worth watching and extremely entertaining:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pkVLqSaahk
Well that IS Nooorthan ky
+1 As a Northern Kentuckian, I can't argue with that.
The article starts out with an un truth which has been retold many times:
"The Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts in elections. Now politicians in Kentucky are claiming they have a Constitutional right to receive gifts from lobbyists".
That is not what Citizens United v. FEC held. It held that Corporations can spend unlimited money on ADVERTISING in elections, not "unlimited amounts in elections".
It held that advertising is free speech. There are already laws limiting the amount that can be donated to campaigns, and the decision did nothing to change that.
One man's "advertising" is another man's bribe. Just words.
MickV,
When you say that "There are already laws limiting the amount that can be donated to campaigns, and the decision did nothing to change that." you are, narrowly speaking, correct.
However, you fail to mention that the subsequent McCutcheon v. FEC took care of that, and did away with limits.
It is true that most people really do not understand what Citizens United vs. FEC was all about. They roll several concepts into one under the blanket of the Citizens United decision.
Fuck it; I am feeling frisky and I have the time tonight. Besides, the lack of knowledge on this issue really burns my ass.
Here goes...
---------------------------------------------
CITIZENS UNITED
In the landmark "Citizens" case, the Supreme Court struck down provisions that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".
The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or unions. Citizens United struck down federal restrictions on corporate independent expenditures to support or defeat a candidate based on two premises:
Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. In order to make the Citizens United decision plausible, the concept of corporate personhood was stretched out further than it ever has been before.
Personally, I refuse to even consider the corporate personhood argument until corporations and LLCs are convicted and given the death penalty like any other human being.
I am convinced that the basic factual assumptions underlying Citizens United are incorrect. The Court’s insistence that unlimited corporate spending does not create the appearance of corruption flies in the face of common sense, the overwhelming opinion of the American people, and the facts. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent-, "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
Aside from the five people who wrote the original decision some years ago, it is difficult to find anyone who thinks that candidates can benefit from million dollar checks written to their Super PACs without the ‘appearance of corruption.’
---------------------------------------------------------
McCutcheon v. FEC
Hot on the heels of the Citizen's United Decision, the US Supreme Court ruled on McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)
In that case, which builds upon the precedents set in Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that caps on the total amount of money an individual donor can give to political candidates, parties, and political action committees are unconstitutional. In this decision, the court directly equates an individual’s monetary expenditures with “free speech”.
In this decision, there was the same exact split as the Citizens United decision, with the same justices on either side of the decision. The vote was five to four with justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joining Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented.
It stands to reason that a wealthy individual cutting massive checks to politicians will have access and influence disproportionate to any other regular Joe Six Pack constituent.
In the majority decision, Chief Justice Roberts goes through some serious legal contortions to get around this inconvenient fact. Several stand out.
After saying that quid pro quo is the only form of corruption that Congress may target, Chief Justice Roberts narrows down and reduces quid pro quo to mean no more than “a direct exchange of an official act for money”—an act akin to bribery. Incredibly, he adds that corruption does not include efforts to “garner influence over or access to elected officials or political parties.” Moreover, the Government’s efforts to prevent the “appearance of corruption”, are “equally confined to the appearance of quid pro quo corruption,” as narrowly defined by Chief Justice Roberts.
In the plurality’s view, a federal statute could not prevent an individual from writing a million dollar check to a political party (by donating to its various committees), because the rationale for any limit would “dangerously broaden the circumscribed definition of quid pro quo corruption articulated in our prior cases.”
-----------------------------------------
Discussion
In a system where money is considered speech, and corporations are people, this trend is inevitable. Elections become not a system of participatory engagement determining how the country is run, but the best democratic charade that money can buy. People get a vote; but only once money has decided whom they can vote for and what the agenda should be. The result is a plutocracy that operates according to the golden rule: that those who have the gold make the rules.
The richest three hundred Americans now have more wealth than the poorest 190 million Americans do put together. Corporate and billionaire donors have targeted state governments and have met with extraordinary success.
The legal precedent that the First Amendment protects anything short of outright bribery has given rise to Super PACs and organizations who write custom-made corporate legislation, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Working in tandem, these organizations have been very effective in writing the laws of the land and getting their narrow agendas pushed forward, many times with little debate or discussion, to the detriment of the greater good. The Super PACs get their people elected, and ALEC gives them the legislation they must submit. It really is as simple as that.
The Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United ruling in 2010 did away with any limits of giving to Super PACs. On top of that, there are the non-profit, so-called 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations, such as Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, which already have no limits on how much money they can receive from donors. According to a recent FEC decision, they do not have to name the donors or participants, and may spend the majority of the funds- hundreds of millions, if they like- on political ads or parallel campaigns without repercussion or accountability.
It has become commonplace to see political figures paying homage to kingmakers such as Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, and Charles and David Koch. Some time ago, we saw the sorry spectacle of a handful of prospective 2016 Republican presidential candidates (Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Scott Walker) trekking to Las Vegas to kiss the ring and audition for the support of Sheldon Adelson, the multi-billionaire casino tycoon who personally spent over $130 million underwriting conservative candidates in the last election cycle alone. Those candidates were in Las Vegas for the sole purpose of attempting to win hundreds of millions from him for their presidential campaigns.
No one who has seen the transformation in our democracy in the past 5 years since Citizens United, can possibly believe that independent expenditures do not give rise to corruption, or the appearance of corruption. Money is not free speech- it is just the size of the stage and the megaphone.
Almost limitless political donations coupled with America’s dramatically widening inequality create a vicious cycle in which the wealthy buy votes that lower their taxes, give them bailouts and subsidies, and deregulate their businesses – thereby making them even wealthier and capable of exerting even more influence to “buy votes”.
Shit, we never had a democracy in America. It always was a fraud.
Excellent work. Thanks very much.
Citizens United huh? Let's talk about Citizens United ..
https://youtu.be/jE2_qmlKFVU
So in discovery, does anyone dare bring up Sheldon Adelson? And with all high probability, Schickel et al is indeed taking money from him? I would like to get on the jury, and practice some nullification ..
And FYI, The Supreme Court is not a real court ..
https://app.box.com/s/hfgvcqg7gqh7i27at6sv53ywu87lwarp (listen to the 3 Wanta interviews. I would call him an expert on the matter, being that he has extensive experience with the courts system. Guess what Roberts was doing before he became Chief Justice.)
Sen. John Schickel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543421/Well-Ill-monkeys-uncle-K...
Ken Tuck where the bribes are low and the lines of politicians waiting to accept them are long.
DoJ has decided that enforcing the law selectively is an exercise of free speech and is suing itself for the right. \snark
The American electoral system is so profoundly corrupt as to make someone as openly greedy as TRUMP ( although apparently not the bitch of interest groups) seem like a credible presidential contender.
Something tells me they won't have to worry about it too much longer.
Didn't Schiff senior try that defense? Yet he is still serving what will likely be a life sentence in federal prison.
"Ah. That's wonderful sir, wonderful. I do like a man who tells you right out he's looking out for himself. Don't we all? I don't trust a man who says he's not."
The Maltese Falcon
"Ah. That's wonderful sir, wonderful. I do like a man who tells you right out he's looking out for himself. Don't we all? I don't trust a man who says he's not."
The Maltese Falcon
Chimp Values
Eat Banana from top
Eat Banana from below