Bullock is now running for Governor of Montana, but it is his dedication to his work as Attorney General that has my attention and appreciation. If he is elected Governor, naturally he plans to continue to push for his principles. Managing to get elected, however, is going to be a hard, up-hill fight. And quite suddenly, the up-hill struggle is facing a likely avalanche of money ready to bury an honorable candidate.
From the Missoulian newspaper, 5/30/12 ... a forum hosted by Attorney General Steve Bullock and titled “By the People: A Conversation about Corporate Influence on our Democracy.” Bullock is defending Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act before the U.S. Supreme Court, and his office teamed up with the UM law school to spread the word in Missoula about the case pending in the wake of the high court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.
For a century, the political scene in Montana has maintained logical, civil and effective election practices. Its Corrupt Practices Act, ushered in in 1912, was established to protect the state against corruption and lift it above its former disgrace of having big money and corporations influence the outcome of elections. Politicians were bought openly; the concept of democracy and seeing the people being fairly represented was a joke. Montana was losing any semblance of actual democracy until the people chose to limit corporate influence on elections.
Are we not right there again today as an entire nation? Are we not floundering in a sea of store-bought politicians and rigged elections? And today, it is largely the result of our vaunted Supreme Court's most ludicrous and destructive decision in our history, the very bad joke known as Citizens United. It was supreme lunacy to toss aside our founding principle of government ...by the people, and invite big money interests to take over control of who wins elections.
Will our Supreme Court return to being somewhat supreme? Being worthy of our respect again by showing they know how to correct themselves and their egregious error?
Doubtful. One would imagine that the humans (with human frailties) on the bench are also watching their personal bank accounts mysteriously grow. Once big money has accomplished much of the goal of getting rid of pesky progressives (particularly that sitting president, the black !$*%&@!) and their desire to see the people governed fairly, then what's to stop the country from the final plunge into a plutocracy? Have you caught the nuances lately in the use of this word? Only a year or two ago, most pundits and writers were talking about the lean toward a plutocracy; recently more are willing to label our current political structure as our plutocracy. And the take-over of democracy is nearing completion - the success of the 1% uber-rich class owing to the idiocy of the Supreme Court. (Perhaps that could be said with a lighter tone as - of all people - Sen. John McCain recently phrased his view of the court. From the Washington Post, May 20 article by Robert Barnes: McCain has in turn been dismissive of a court — without a single member who has ever run for public office — that he says is hopelessly naive about how campaign finance affects the political process.)
So, was the Citizens United ruling the proverbial bridge too far? Will the court see any chance of pulling back from the brink of democracy's demise? The answer may well rest with this case of Bullock vs a dastardly D.C.-based entity that was able to get the court to prevent the enforcement of
But consider the other road: If the court bows further to big money in this case and Steve Bullock is then run over and squashed under corporate influence, then he will not be the big loser. The nation will be the real loser. We all (99% of us) will lose and the Supreme Court will lose its ability to ever be supreme again. At this point, the court itself appears to have been influenced by big money. Once it has completely capitulated and the plutocracy is in place with strength, the court will march to all orders of the 1% from then on.
Actually, I had considered coining a new term for the ungainly beast that will come to power once democracy has been ousted. I see it as right-wing radicalism which has come to mean the rich and the religious somehow marching in lock-step to combine their strengths. So methought perhaps a new name such as plutheocracy would cover it. But this is not necessary to consider. The final outcome will actually be nothing more than the plutocracy at the helm because the 1% cares no more for religionists than for pagans such as I. Christianity is simply being used as a means to an end. The plutocrats will ride rough-shod over us all and make all decisions on any and all matters public and private. And I will have to seek a new country.
Or maybe Steve Bullock will just come through!
June 6th note:
Now the weight on Bullock's back is heavier than ever; Wisconsin let us down yesterday. The whole progressive world was damaged badly in Wisconsin by the failure of the people's effort to oust the wretched excuse for a governor, even after so much uproar over his policies had made it easy to petition for his recall. The reason for the failure? Big money! And what's being called dark money. The groundswell for democratic action and justice in one state was run over and squashed under national unlimited influence. Thank you, Supreme Fools!
Very well said. To say recent events have me deeply depressed would be a gross understatement.
ReplyDeleteIt just seems to me, as depressing as the reality may be, that most of us (at least 99%) are livestock for the super rich, powerful and well-connected.
ReplyDeleteThat, in most counties and states in the United States, there is property tax. This means none of us actually own property, because if we don't pay the tax, the government takes the property.
Beyond this, courts have now decided that government can sieze private property under the right of Imminenent Domain and give it to developers to build strip malls for private profit. A few have lodged feeble protests, but nothing really prevails except the interest of Corporate Business.
Then there is the curious case of a church which bought a piece of property. Shortly after that, a freeway (not so free these days, since you have to pay a bridge toll) was built and the act of building that freeway resulted in the church property in becoming classified as a "wet land". It now cannot be developed and selling it will be a bitch.
Big money wins. We are all irrelevant except as cogs and fodder. I liken it to "The Princeton Prison Experiment" and we are the prisoners. The guards are just doing their jobs. Right. It's a nightmare from which we will not awaken.
People are more than willing to give up their freedoms if only you promise them security.
I do hope that Mr. Bullock wins, but even if he is, it seems pretty clear that he will ultimately be sidelined.
For sometimes, those in control give us the "win" to give us the illusion of freedom, which never existed in the first place, only to take it away when we forget the incident which brought the issue to our (very short) attention (spans).