KRAMER’S NOTE: Many of you may not be familiar with the actions that led to what I believe to be corrupt actions by the IRS. On one hand, the fair and balanced media are geared for brief news clips and worry about “getting into the weeds” with detail. And the predominantly liberal news publications simply don’t want you to know the detail. In fact, most reporters don’t even know the detail. So, this is Part 1 of a capsulized timeline to help you understand the importance of investigating this scandal.
The Beginning: President Obama Slams Supreme Court Decision
“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”
The Supreme Court justices are rudely scolded by President Obama during the 2010 State-of-the-Union Address (AP photo)
Those were the words of President Obama as he rudely chastised the robed members of the Supreme Court sitting directly in front of him at his 2010 State-of-the-Union address. And to make matters worse, Democrat members of Congress rose to cheer and applaud directly behind them, including Senators Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer, who intentionally clapped close to their heads. And Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stood to their immediate right smiling as he clapped.
In the decision, known as Citizens United, the justices overturned previous decisions that prohibited, “corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an ‘electioneering communication’ or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.”
It should be understood that corporations are still not permitted to contribute directly to federal candidates. The ruling merely allows them to spend money on electioneering from its own accounts without forming political action committees.
In 2008, Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to its film, Hillary: The Movie. The movie expressed opinions about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s qualifications to be president.
The district court denied the injunction citing unconstitutional grounds, but on Jan. 21, 2010 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling with Justice Kennedy writing for the majority, stated that “under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited … that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.
As for the president’s assertion that the decision by the Supreme Court would “open the floodgates” to foreign corporations; that was not true. Contributions by foreign entities continue to be barred under 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) . Some of you may recall seeing Justice Alito’s apparent mouthing of the words “not true” during the president’s statement.
Of course we know the president, who always refers to the equal playing field, is concerned that unions, representing 13 of the 16 top donors to Democrat campaigns, now might see GOP gains in contributors.
NEXT: Democrats Intimidate the IRS, Part 2
