On 12/27/2010 10:18 PM, RHF wrote:

.
- The only lesson from November is that the
- Supreme Court needs some impeaching.

'Special-Dave' you are such an 'imp'
and a real 'peach' too . . .
Tells Us 'Special-Dave' How Did The US Supreme
Court Factor into the November 2010 Elections...

By:
David Brooks
La Jornada

Four years ago, Warren Buffett, the third richest man on the planet,
said, "Of course there is a class war, but it's my class, the rich
class, that is waging the war, and we're winning."

This mid-term election in the United States is a front of the class war.
Business interests and the wealthy have declared war against anything
that dares to impose controls on them, limit their activities or touch
their fortunes, and they say so, explicitly and openly.

The vast majority of funds that are invested in what is already the most
expensive mid-term election in history (it is expected to exceed,
perhaps by far, 3.5 billion dollars) comes from billionaire donors,
companies and groups representing the wealthy class.

For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has invested some $75 million
in this election, almost all to support Republican candidates. In
January, Chamber president Thomas Donohue said his association intended
"to carry out the biggest and strongest voter-education effort and
promotion of issues in our nearly one-century-old history." He is
keeping his promise.

The organization American Crossroads, a project of Karl Rove, former
campaign and political strategist for George W. Bush, receives donations
of up to one million dollars from wealthy donors to support conservative
candidates across the country.

Multinational companies channel funds through these organizations (using
laws that allow them to conceal the identity of some donors) to promote
their corporate agendas to weaken government control over their
operations, the impact of health reform, efforts to curb the change in
climate and other things considered "anti-business" that inhibit
business. They also promote policies that favor "free enterprise" and
"free trade."

Many companies take advantage of a recent decision by the Supreme
Court of the United States (known as the Citizens United case) that gave
companies the same rights of "freedom of expression" enjoyed by
individuals. Through this decision, they can fund propaganda for or
against candidates to promote their agenda.

That ruling maintained that "independent expenditures" made by companies
in the electoral debate "do not lead to corruption or the appearance of
corruption" and though they "can generate influence on, or access to,
elected officials, that does not imply that these officials are corrupt.
And the appearance of influence or access will not cause voters to lose
faith in this democracy."

This was denounced as a serious abuse of the democratic process by
champions of electoral reforms who seek to reduce the influence of money
in elections.