Dumb Ron Johnson wants to Corporate and Special Interest Dark money to reduce the Power of the Press.

As we're finding out, that "money is free speech" shredding of the 1st Amendment was only the beginning.

Dumb Ron Johnson has taken that next jaw dropping step to redefine who's speech is constitutionally protected, a political ratings system to determine who's more deserving.

Forget about the "originalist" view of the 1st Amendment, and that odd confusing "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Johnson won't have it.

Johnson: "Trust me, we will not allow the Supreme Court to flip, it's not going to happen." 

Johnson: “I have never had the press press me so hard to make a change of position. The press wants the Supreme Court to flip because the press is not particularly interested in freedom of speech."

So Johnson blamed the press, the cornerstone of a free and informed nation, for having no interested in preserving free speech. As Johnson suggested, "originalist" founding father Thomas Jefferson had it all wrong when he made these observations centuries ago:

"Our citizens may be deceived for a while, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light." 

"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions." 

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."

Silly Jefferson believed newspapers actually sparked a healthy public debate over the issues.

It appears Dumb Ron Johnson wants corporate and special interest dark money to "reduce" the power of the press, abridge it with Citizens United:

Johnson: "When other Americans, other than the members of the press, can get their message out, the press’s power is reduced. You engage in campaign finance reform, which restricts free speech, that makes a few members of the press have all the more power. So the press is really not for freedom of speech. They like restrictions in speech because it gives them more power. So again, they want to see the Supreme Court flipped. I got that."

This is a final nail in the coffin of the free press, which has already been delegitimized by right wingers as "liberal." I found it humorous when one of their favorite conservative news sources, Breitbart, fell apart over in-fighting. Even Marco Rubio trashed it as conspiratorial.

Americans don't like Food Stamp Shaming, and Hate Citizens United/Money is Speech.

A few big time polls came out today, gauging public sentiment about big time issues, and low and behold, Republican politicians are not on the same page as their voters. You’d think Republicans would lose a few more elections if that were really true.

Food Stamp Shaming and Food Restrictions: Most Americans think poor people shouldn't feel ashamed for using the safety net, according to a new YouGov poll. Just 14 percent of survey respondents said they thought people should feel ashamed for using welfare, while 62 percent said people shouldn't feel ashamed. Republicans were more likely to favor shame than Democrats, 20 percent to 9 percent.

Don’t celebrate yet. Republicans have managed to make Americans suspicious of poorer Americans, enough so to warrant drug testing without suspicion, which is pretty unconstitutional.

Two-thirds of Americans surveyed in the new YouGov poll supported welfare drug testing.

And like the public’s lack of support for ObamaCare, even though they like the details, two things; Republicans have successfully messaged food buying restriction on the poor, a form of shaming, something they’re really against; but the public doesn’t like the food restrictions when they’re confronted with the actual choices:

Sixty-four percent in the YouGov poll supported government restrictions on what people can buy with public benefits, but only 28 percent said they supported prohibiting food stamp purchases of steak, seafood, cookies, chips or energy drinks.

Poll Says We all Hate Citizens United: Boy, if you talk to “stand with Walker” Borg-ites, they’ll agree money is speech. But away from the nut job activist, not so much:

A new NY Times poll was just released that targets the insane amounts of money being funneled into politics ever since the Roberts Court decided corporations were people and the results are staggering. 

NY Times: Americans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections made possible by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent by “super PACs” and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in elections without disclosing the names of their donors.

And by a significant margin, they reject the argument that underpins close to four decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence on campaign finance: that political money is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Even self-identified Republicans are evenly split on the question.

Stoughton's Scanner problem failed to count all but 16 votes for Citizens United Referendum Question.

Not only does Thom Hartmann and Brad Freidman talk about the wrong count for the Citizens United referendum question in Stoughton, but in video footage running in the background later on, Hartmann featured my very own polling place in Middleton. Odd but cool.

They also looked at the large discrepancy between the polling results and the final vote totals for Republicans. Voter suppression? Machine malfunctions? No one knows yet:

Crazy Cruz compares taking money out of elections with Banning Books. Yea, that's what Democrats want to do...

Many were right when they first compared Sen. Ted Cruz to Joseph McCarthy. He even looks like the guy.

While the public overwhelmingly wants to take money out of our elections, politicians like Cruz want to take us in the opposite direction. Does an inanimate object like money have a First Amendment right to free speech? It's crazy.

But even worse: Is this tweet one of the most irresponsible and loathsome attempts at fear mongering yet by a sitting senator?

The activist conservative Supreme Court completely messed up the context of the First Amendment. Chris Hayes explores that belief:



But the current wave of amendments do have their problems:

MSNBC: Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine, of the proposals being considered … As Hasen detailed in a paper from last October, an amendment proposed by Democratic Sens. Jon Tester of Montana and Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania would limit constitutional rights to “natural persons,” and which could have the inadvertent impact of allowing the State of New York to bar publication of The New York Times.

Another proposal, from New Mexico Democratic Sen. Tom Udall, which Hasen described as “marginally better,” would create an exception for the press – which would be confusing, given that the line between who is and is not a journalist continues to blur as technology disrupts the media industry.

Jamie Raskin, a Democratic state legislator from Maryland and law professor at American University said, “Look at the political realm they want to give to the American people: Corporations are treated like people, they can give on an unlimited basis directly to candidates, they can spend on an unlimited basis and they don’t have to tell anybody. Then they whine if anybody even calls a corporation out for doing it, saying that somehow their First Amendment rights have been violated. That’s a pretty special First Amendment they’ve got.”

There’s a universe of reasonable campaign finance restrictions between legalized bribery and establishing a Ministry of Truth, but none of them are likely to pass anytime soon. More effective limits on money in politics however, may have to wait for a Supreme Court friendlier to campaign finance reform.

GAB warns, “Candidates could operate secret committees…to run overwhelming and negative advertising…remain above the fray…without limitations on the amounts accepted.”

Sounds kinda scary.

We’re apparently very close to losing total control of our government, all the while conservatives happily jump on board the “money is speech” bandwagon that’s headed straight to an oligarchy.

   

How can you not get that sinking feeling in your gut that something is very wrong here. WSJ:

Kevin Kennedy, the director and general counsel of the state's Government Accountability Board, warned of dire consequences of Judge Gregory Peterson's interpretation of Wisconsin's campaign laws in the (John Doe) probe, which centers around a sweeping investigation into alleged illegal coordination between conservative groups and the recall campaign of Gov. Scott Walker and others.

"A candidate could operate secret committees and direct them to run overwhelming and negative advertising, while the candidate remains above the fray and the public would not know the true source of the contributions and expenditures."

"The public would have no way of knowing who actually was supporting the candidate and to what extent. Without campaign finance disclosure and disclaimers identifying the actual sponsors of campaign advertisement, the public would have no way of tracking whether a donation resulted in favorable treatment by the elected candidate."

"The impact of the instant matter on the public is profound," Kennedy said in the affidavit, which was initially filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals. "In contradiction of the stated legislative purpose of Wisconsin's campaign finance laws, affirming the John Doe judge's interpretation of Wisconsin law regarding coordination would result in candidate's direct control over millions of dollars of undisclosed corporate and individual contributions without limitation on the amounts accepted.

Even the conservative activist Supreme Court in Citizens United encouraged finance disclosure laws as a remedy to the corrupting power of money.

Republicans Destroy Public Confidence of our Judicial Branch of government.

Republicans talk big about protecting the integrity of everything from voting to judges. As always, it's opposite day everyday in Republican world.
While the nation collapses under the partisan decisions by the decidedly conservative activist Supreme Court, the public has noticed. I'm relieved I wasn't the only one.

Buzzfeed: Only about a third of Americans believe the Supreme Court decides cases based on the law alone ... Americans believe the Supreme Court justices are political, letting their personal views sway their decisions … more than three-quarters of Americans oppose the Citizens United ruling … Americans say they would also like to see more ... access to courtroom proceedings to financial disclosures and ethics rules — as well as an end to lifetime terms.

The Numbers:

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps: Majorities of Republican, Democratic, and Independent respondents all told the pollsters that “the current U.S. Supreme Court justices often let their own personal or political views influence their decisions” — 54% of Democrats, 62% of Republicans, and 63% of Independents, for a total result of 60% of respondents agreeing with the statement. Only 36% of respondents agree that “the current U.S. Supreme Court justices usually decide their cases based on legal analysis without regard to their own personal or political views.” Specifically regarding the Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision from 2010, 80% of Americans opposed the decision and 18% supported it. Although Republicans (72%) were less opposed to the decision than Democrats (82%), it was Independents (84%) most opposed to the decision. 

National Review revs up base claiming Dems Constitutional Amendment will "lock their critics out of the public square."

The National Review is in full panic mode, or it’s doing what it does best, fear monger.  

I especially enjoyed their agonizing effort to make money sound like an essential part of “free speech.”

Displeased with recent legal victories in which free speech has prevailed over limitations on political speech imposed by Congress … Senate Democrats have introduced a constitutional amendment that would not only set aside the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence and invest Congress with virtually unlimited power to regulate the political activism of private citizens, alone or in groups, but would also give the federal government and the states the power to shut down newspapers, television stations, and radio networks that displease them.

There’s so much projection here you can choke on it. After reading that first paragraph, the base is probably foaming at the mouth at this point, or will after this additional nudge:

This is an all-out assault on the First Amendment and an act of vandalism against the Constitution.

To many of us, it’s called campaign finance reform, and while we had it in place, the nation didn't collapse or shred the constitution. That’s the job of our activist conservative Supreme Court.

The amendment they are contemplating would … in effect repeal the First Amendment.

Now suspend the idea that this broad amendment would any affect on Democratic contributors:

What they object to is money moving through channels that do not confer advantages upon Democrats. The Left is comfortably ensconced in the unions, the public sector, the educational bureaucracies, and the traditional media, and groups such as Citizens United and True the Vote and thousands of others create new competition in the political marketplace. This amendment is not about cleaning up elections — it’s about the Democrats’ seeking to lock their critics out of the public square.

Now return to the idea that the amendment would indeed have an affect on both parties:

The question here is not the idea of a constitutional amendment but the content of this proposed amendment, which would place virtually all political activism — and most political speech of any consequence — under federal regulation. It is a cynical and dangerous attack on the First Amendment, and should be met not only with resistance but with contempt — for the amendment itself, and for the sort of power-mad men who would propose it. 

The power mad men? Democrats? Try the 300 to 400 million/billionaires who are already power mad. Who attended the Adelson primary...?

Supreme Court pours more Campaign Cash into elections, contradict yesterdays voters who declared "Money is not free speech."

Americans seem bewildered by the conservative activist Supreme Court’s decision on Citizen’s United. Few people believe the founding fathers tried to give corporations the same rights as people. 

Just as outrageous is the idea that corporations would then have free speech rights in the form of money.

Constitutional Amendment: Wisconsinites overwhelmingly approved county wide referendums supporting an amendment to the constitution... 

“declaring that only human beings, not corporations, unions, nonprofits or similar associations are endowed with constitutional rights.”

And that…

“Money is not free speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”

Edgerton, Waunakee, DeForest, Belleville and Windsor all supported the above constitutional amendment.

                                                                                                                                                                                            

But if today is any indication, the Robert’s court and the conservative majority have a different view of the founding fathers intentions, and the dystopian future they’re helping to create. The latest case focused on contributions, rather than spending.

Voting 5-4 along ideological lines, the Supreme Court struck down decades-old limits on the total money donors can give to federal candidates and parties, issuing its biggest campaign-finance ruling since the 2010 Citizens United decision … the caps violated the speech rights of Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican official seeking to give candidates, parties and political committees more than the $123,200 maximum.

The court stopped short of undercutting a 1976 ruling that allows caps on contributions to individual candidates.  Justice Thomas (said) in a separate opinion that he would have gone further and overturned the 1976 ruling.

 The overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s lead opinion … it will give more freedom to wealthy donors looking to use their money to make a political impact. Taken together with Citizens United, the decision “eviscerates our nation’s campaign-finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent. 

Sen. Vinehout says Jackson County Fair goers response: "Corporations are not people." Company Employees and CEO's getting two votes.

Sen. Kathleen Vinehout is still kicking around a run again for governor, but in the meantime, has been trying to find out how people feel about "corporations are people, my friend," and the Citizens United decision. I thought this opening section was encouraging, and may even help me sleep tonight. She does commentary at Uppity Wisconsin, so check out the rest of here.

Sen. K. Vinehout: “Corporations are not people,” the Black River Falls woman told me.

“People in corporations already get a vote and a chance to speak out just like the rest of us. Giving corporations a vote and a chance to speak out means those people are getting two votes. That’s not fair.”

That statement summarized the opinion of three quarters of the fairgoers in Jackson County who chose to stop and vote on the statement “corporations are people.”

“We should amend the constitution to limit money in politics” garnered support from nearly 9 in 10 participants in the voluntary poll. A nearly unanimous 98% of fairgoers voting in the poll agreed with the statement “Every citizen should be encouraged to vote.”

Although unscientific, the poll does reflect attitudes across the United States related to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Forgetting Citizens United's "Hillary the Movie" Priebus wants to ban CNN and NBC's own "Hillary" movies

Remember Citizens United’s film, Hillary the Movie? That movie did everything it could to bash Clinton. When the federal government blocked its airing, the Republicans went apoplectic. 

That’s when the activist Supreme Court stepped in and decided it was free speech. That opened the flood gates for special interest money and was ballyhooed by Republicans as freedom of speech and liberty!

Balls out Hypocrisy: Hillary the "movies" are back, but this time, without any sense of irony. Republican chair Reince Priebus is trying to block it with the threat of withholding “freedom”…I mean money and real speech-the debates.

The Hill: Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus threatened to pull the group’s partnership with NBC and CNN for 2016 GOP presidential primary debates if the networks moved ahead with plans to air films on Hillary Clinton. “If they have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC’s Summer Meeting on August 14, I will seek a binding vote stating that the RNC will neither partner with these networks in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor,” Preibus said in a statement.

In something reminiscent of despotic nations, where the opposition is vilified, threatened and not tolerated:

The RNC chairman cited executives and employees from both networks who have been “generous supporters” of Clinton and the Democrats. “This suggests a deliberate attempt at influencing American political opinion in favor of a preferred candidate,” Priebus wrote. “I find this disturbing and disappointing."

But Hillary the Movie...anyone? And he does know what he’s doing is blackmail. Priebus isn't worried though, he’s got followers…I mean fellow leaders to back him:

"I stand with Reince Priebus and the RNC,” Iowa GOP Chairman A.J. Spiker said in a statement. “Given NBC and CNN's decision to move forward on their films, they've attempted to give celebrity status to Hillary Clinton. They are clearly making an effort to influence the Presidential race in 2016 without adhering to their supposed pledge to uphold journalistic integrity,” Spiker added.

Hillary the Movie...that's what Republicans were trying to do with Hillary the Movie.

New Hampshire GOP Chairwoman Jennifer Horn said over Twitter that Priebus’s concerns were “valid and must be addressed.”

Hillary the Movie guys? You won that case, now you want to replay this whole thing and ban Hillary the "movies?" Hello…..

Soglin takes on Republicans, Citizens United, and Destructive Special Interest Money that undermines Local Control.

Madison Mayor Paul Soglin is going on the offensive.

Soglin’s attacking Citizens United in a way that every Democratic mayor in the country should be aware of, and adopting. You don’t often see this kind of well thought offensive taken on by liberal politicians.

While Democrats can only sit on the sidelines watching Republicans dismantle decades of progress, Soglin thinks it’s time to turn the tables. 

Soglin not only wants to hold businesses accountable for their political actions, but also for backing anti-consumer laws that harm local economies. 

Politifact: "Legislative action since Gov. Scott Walker’s election — including Act 10 in 2011 curtailing the collective bargaining power of most public workers, and more recently, legislation setting levy limits for municipalities and restricting cities’ powers in tenant-landlord law — got Soglin wondering if companies supporting Republican causes would rather lobby against the city or do business with it," the Cap Times story said. It added: "He’s betting that exposing such activities might prompt some companies to curtail them."

That’s what campaign disclosure laws are all about anyway. Make big money contributors publically stand up for what are now secret attempts to undermine our democracy. Pretty clear and pretty smart.

The ordinance, which requires people or entities contracting with the city for more than $25,000 to disclose contributions to certain advocacy groups ... receiv(ed) 4-0 approval from the Board of Estimates.

The ordinance aims to limit vendors doing business with the city from providing anonymous contributions to advocacy groups listed under section 501(c)(4) of the IRS. Several types of contracts are excluded from the requirement.

Soglin didn’t just come up with this idea, he was pushed into it:

Soglin (took) action after a mailer from a political action committee blasting 6th District Ald. Marsha Rummel showed up just days before the April 2 election with no indication of who financed it … maybe this was associated with a business in the 6th District,” Soglin said. “That was enough to prompt me to say we’ve got to do something.”

Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce President Zach Brandon … opposing it … questioned whether the problem the ordinance aims to fix exists in Madison.

Isn't that amazing? Business interests are always suggesting “what if” scenarios to push their deregulation, anti-consumer agenda. How many times have we asked Republicans about their legislative “solutions looking for a problem?” Voter ID is one example.

The same businesses who began threatening employees if they voted Democratic...they’re now crying fowl over something like this?

“The Chamber does not support this proposed ordinance … the potential to chill political engagement and the wrong message it sends that politics are important in the Madison procurement process,” he said.

That's right, politics is the last thing businesses thinks about, especially the big donors:

But Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, an elections watchdog group said “It’s an important and very necessary response to the Citizens United decision,” McCabe said. “My experience is that practices that start at the federal election level do filter down to the state level and then eventually to the local level.”

By the way, Politifact's story went something like this;

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty … contends the liberal mayor’s proposed ordinance is unconstitutional and violates "a bedrock principle of our democracy that government cannot play favorites among citizens, including public contractors, based on their political beliefs." The proposed ordinance, "according to Mayor Soglin, is intended to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees." Is that what Soglin has said is a goal of the legislation?”

Politifact rates that "True," but Soglin also said…

"I think it would be a good idea to know if the bidders are working against the interests of the city. It is simply the idea that sunshine is good … if they’re supplying the city while they're behaving like the Koch brothers, it would be good for the public to know it. It’s a bit ironic when someone wants a contract with government, yet supports organizations that hate government and try to make it inefficient."

The proposal would require disclosure of donations to groups of any political stripe -- it does not single out conservatives or Republicans. Rather, the ordinance specifies that firms and minority owners disclose donations made to tax-exempt 501(c)(4) advocacy or "super PAC" organizations operating in Wisconsin the prior two years.

All perfectly fair and legal. Just like the recall petition blacklist used by conservatives to attack citizens and business owners? 

Because of Citizens United, can state No Call Lists ban Robo-Calls (Political Free Speech)?

I just want to start by saying I’m way out of my league when it comes to legal questions and what is or isn't constitutional, but as always, I do have an opinion and a lot of questions. I’m also open to suggestions. But here's how I see it.

It’ll be interesting to watch our controlling Republican state authority suddenly try to make the case political robo-calls aren't protected speech, after gladly approving of the Supreme Courts Citizen’s United decision declaring political money as free speech.

They’re trying.

Chippewa Herald: Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, R-River Falls, and Rep. Andre Jacque, R-DePere, are pushing a bipartisan measure that would allow people to remain on the state’s do-not-call list permanently and ban political robo-calls to people on the list…

Can Republicans ban political free speech? With word games and self-deception, they reason it’s not a total ban on political free speech, just a ban for those on the no-call list. Huh?

(It) would not ban such automatically dialed election-related calls but would prevent those calls from being made to numbers on the do-not-call list.

There are groups claiming such bans exist, groups who stand to make a profit:

Shaun Dakin, the CEO and founder of The National Political Do Not Contact Registry, an online service that charges voters a small fee to sign up and make clear they do not want to receive political robo-calls said, “A handful of states including Indiana, Oregon and Minnesota do have laws on the books that prohibit political robo-calling, but in the absence of federal legislation, residents in most states have little protection against these automated calls.”

Harsdorf and Jacque should have done their research. I looked up the regulation in Minnesota and found they don’t ban political robo-calls.

In Minnesota, there's still plenty of confusion about why calls from political organizations are still getting through, said Dan Hendrickson, communications coordinator for the Better Business Bureau of Minnesota and North Dakota. Certain organizations are exempt from the law: Nonprofit organizations, political organizations, businesses with a prior relationship with the customer and some solicitors seeking face-to-face meetings.

Indiana had a few exemptions but did not come right out and mention a ban on political robo-calls. Nor did they say that their law requiring a live person (not a recording) applied to political calls. Nothing!

And Oregon…no such ban.

Exceptions to Do Not Call Under Oregon law: certain solicitation calls are still allowed … calls from Public agencies, Political campaigns asking for your opinion or vote.

From where I sit, Wisconsin would be the only one bucking Citizens United. Will another possibly unconstitutional law makes its way through the courts here? Republican do believe in the constitution, right?

Rove spin; Obama suppressed vote! Insists spending lots of money with him worthwhile.

Fox News may have tanked its credibility completely during the presidential election, but that doesn't mean they're going to fire their on air celebrity cast of whores, players that attract a whole lot of viewers.

Karl Rove is a Fox Inc. money making machine, so keeping him in business helps sponsors and the network relive the Bush years:

Rove determined to stay in business:

Politico: Rove, for one, isn’t backing down. The unofficial GOP outside money boss argues the efforts by his Crossroads outfits prevented a bigger electoral blowout.

“Crossroads, which you helped found, spent what, $325 million, and we’ve ended up with the same president, the same Democratic majority in the Senate and the same Republican majority in the House. Was it worth it?” Chris Wallace asked Rove.

“Yeah,” Rove responded. “Look, if groups like Crossroads were not active, this race would have been over a long time ago.

Exposed: Stephen and Nancy Einhorn were anonymous donors behind billboards that Targeted Minority Neighborhoods with threatening Voter Fraud messages.

Voter fraud is nonexistent. But strongly paranoid conservative ideologues still think it worth committing a felony to vote fraudulently or that it’s happened at all (minus mistaken ex-felons).

While the Citizens United decision talked a lot about the free speech rights Americans and inanimate government creations known as corporations, my small donation can be tracked and identified, while big time conservative zealots can hide behind anonymous billboards. That’s fair?:

jsonline-Dan Bice: Stephen Einhorn - a Wisconsin venture capital fund manager and major GOP donor - acknowledged Monday that he and his wife Nancy paid for dozens of anonymous billboards in and around Milwaukee and two Ohio cities warning residents of the penalties for committing voter fraud.

"Stephen and Nancy Einhorn placed these billboards as a public service because voter fraud - whether by Republicans or Democrats - undermines our democratic process," said the Einhorns' statement, which was released by the Chicago public relations firm Culloton Strategies. "By reminding people of the possible consequences of illegal voting, we hope to help the upcoming election be decided by legally registered voters."

One Wisconsin Now and the website theGrio exposed the Einhorn’s who targeted mostly minority voters, all the while covering their tracks by allowing a few billboards in conservative areas. Even stranger, while it was against company policy at Clear Channel to accept anonymous political ads, they went ahead with the ads in a number of states anyway.

Projection much...?

Scot Ross, executive director of One Wisconsin Now, issued a statement Monday raising several questions for the Einhorn's; "Perhaps their Chicago public relations firm could answer why the Einhorn's (didn’t) put their name on it, rather than hiding behind the cowardly veil of anonymity."

The Einhorn's were so frightened and concerned about their anonymity, that they boldly did an interview with radio host Charlie Sykes. Hey they weren't seeking any attention...right?

But conservatives are paranoid frightened citizens, who know their odd vision for the country is so unappealing that they have to hide in the shadows to force change.

Sykes said the foundation chief was given the option of disclosing his family's identity or taking down the ads. After initially considering releasing the family's name, Sykes wrote, the foundation's leader opted to pull the billboards because he was "reluctant to put his children and grandchildren at any risk."

Another Reason to Overturn Citizens United!

Full admission money does influence and corrupt our government:

So this is something to celebrate?

Cash Happy Republicans win "free speech" race, where every legislator is a corporate executive.

Even though it looks bad, sure is unethical, and may destroy our representative government, Republicans have got to like being on the side of campaign cash. Thankfully, conservatives bought into the American dream offered up by Big Business, where everybody has a chance to be wealthy, even if it's just a dream. 

jsonline: The Democracy Campaign estimated Walker and groups supporting him spent $58.7 million, compared with $22 million spent by Barrett, three Democrats whom Barrett defeated in the May primary and groups supporting Democrats.

He collected two donations of $500,000 - 50 times the usual $10,000 limit per donor.

Walker was also helped by groups backing him. The Republican Governors Association spent $9.4 million supporting Walker; business lobbyists Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce spent an estimated $4 million to help Walker and Senate Republicans also facing recall; and Americans for Prosperity and the MacIver Institute for Public Policy jointly spent an estimated $3.7 million touting Walker's policies.

Federal Judge Refuses to lift his block on Parts of Act 10.

Gov. Scott Walker unconstitutional attempt to limit the free speech of public unions will not get a reprieve in the courts while the state challenges a federal judges order to block parts of Act 10.

WSJ: U.S. District Judge William Conley ruled that his order — which blocks mandatory annual recertification of employee unions and allows the collection of union dues from employee paychecks — will take effect while the state appeals his March 30 ruling.

Here's a great discussion of Judge Conley's decision from WTDY 1670's Sly in the Morning, and guest attorney Mike Riley (audio only). They take a well deserved shot at conservative radio talker Vicki McKenna and male clone Brian Schimming, who described Judge Conley as one of those typical liberal Dane County judges, when in fact, he's a federal judge. But hey, details, details. 

Here's the latest on Judge Conley's ruling:

Conley had ruled in March that portions of Act 10, as the law is known, are unconstitutional.

In an 11-page ruling, Conley wrote that he was not persuaded the state would prevail in its appeal. Conley wrote that it's "irrational" to impose annual recertification by a super majority on most unions while imposing fewer burdens on public safety unions that, by law, require membership and payment of dues.

Conley also added that the state continues "to ignore that their burden in justifying either an annual recertification requirement or the refusal to withhold voluntary dues is not met by posing thin reeds of rationality." Appearance matters, he wrote, "and it appears these were punitive measures intended to impinge directly on the associational and free speech rights of political opponents, while leaving mainly supportive unions alone."

Does Walker Really Hate Out-of-State Interference? Didn't think so.

Gov. Scott Walker hates big union bosses from out of state, interfering in Wisconsin's business, but loves big corporate bosses influencing and buying our elections. What else can you say:

AP: More than 60 percent of the donations Gov. Scott Walker has received from individuals since Dec. 11 came from outside Wisconsin ... watchdog group the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign shows that 61 percent of his money came from out of state ... $1 million he got from three Missouri donors and one from Texas over a single week earlier in January ... roughly half of the $4.5 million Walker raised over the past five weeks came from 33 individual donors ... Walker has raised $12.1 million since last year, the most-ever by a candidate for governor in Wisconsin beating his previous $10 million record set in 2010.

Outside moneyed interests, not the union kind, are just helping Walker save the American way of life. That's what makes Walker's efforts so virtuous. 

Montana Supreme Court Bans Corporate Money in Campaigns, which "can give rise to corruption."

It looks like the conservative Montana Supreme Court would rather use facts, and its own history, as a way to decide that campaign money corrupts and should be banned. Which means, they're bucking Citizens United and the claim by the Robert's court that money doesn't have a corrupting influence. 

Huffington Post: The Montana Supreme Court has put itself on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a century-old state law that bans corporate spending in state and local political campaigns.

The law, which was passed by Montana voters in 1912 to combat Gilded Age corporate control over much of Montana's government, states that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissiondecision, (held) that independent electoral spending by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" that such laws were enacted to combat.

Montana, however, stood by its 1912 law, which led several corporations to challenge it as unconstitutional. By a 5-2 vote this past Friday, the Montana Supreme Court declined to recognize the common understanding that Citizens United bars all laws limiting independent electoral spending. Instead, Chief Justice Mike McGrath called on the history surrounding the state law to show that corporate money, even if not directly contributed to a campaign, can give rise to corruption.

McGrath's opinion in Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General harkens back to the turn of the 20th century, when Montana's "Copper Kings" -- the natural resource-rich state's version of the robber barons -- competed "for political and economic domination" so effectively that by the time the Montana voters banned corporate spending in a voter initiative, "the State of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority." One such Copper King, wrote Mark Twain in a quotation cited by McGrath, was "said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment."

Paul S. Ryan, associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, characterized the Montana Supreme Court's reliance on factual findings culled from a century of state history, plus the trial testimony from contemporary politicians of both parties, as "an antidote to the crabbed view of corruption" adopted in Citizens United. 

But here's the interesting twist that might just catch the Robert's court flat footed:

To reverse the Montana Supreme Court, however, the justices would have to extract themselves from a quandary of their own making, noted professor Rick Hasen of the University of California-Irvine Law School on his popular Election Law Blog. "If the Court were being honest in Citizens United," Hasen wrote, "it would have said something like: We don't care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption."

But by "dress[ing] up its value judgment ... as a factual statement," continued Hasen, the U.S. Supreme Court must now explain why the Montana Supreme Court was not correct to consider the factual record when it came to justifying corporate spending limits in campaign finance laws.

We're all Corporations now? Selling Corporate Personhood Begins, Casually.

The way it looks right now, the conservative truth that corporations are people, and vice versa, goes without saying. Did you have to ask?

Here's Rand Paul coming at the idea from a slightly different angle, claiming you and me are corporations. In fact, "all of us are corporations." How come? Because we might own stock in a corporation, and the more money we give big business, the more money we make. They believe this stuff. Oh, and how have those stocks and investments worked out for you so far?

Here's the now famous "people are corporations" comment from Mitt Romney in front of a not too receptive Iowa State Fair crowd. 

Man: "What are you going to do to strengthen Social Security and Medicare without cutting benefits?"

Romney: "You want my answer, I'm not going to raise taxes. That's my answer."

Since when is paying a lot more out of pocket for these programs not the same as a tax increase? They're not. They're the same.