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.

Walker's Justice Bradley hopes to win election in the most Positive Dirty Way.

I had to say something about this amazing Supreme Court dark money drenched race controlled by Walker supporters who back his pick, Justice Rebecca Bradley … "The Wisconsin Alliance for Reform (is) spending about $400,000 to help recently appointed Justice Rebecca Bradley."

Besides secretly coordinating Bradley's campaign with the dark money at the Wisconsin Alliance for Reform, here’s what made me spit out my coffee…

JS: Bradley hopes the ads in the race will be positive, said her campaign manager, Madison Wiberg. "As Justice Rebecca Bradley has said since the launch of her campaign, she respects the rights of interested voters to exercise their First Amendment rights in this race."  

Bradley "hopes the ads"... "will be positive?" Really? Just for grins, let's take a look at a more recent Wisconsin Alliance for Reform ad, with their positive First Amendment filled message of laughable lies describing Russ Feingold: 

I'm sure Bradley will be one of the first to immediately correct any errors from the Wisconsin Alliance for Reform TV ads that will saturate the media airwaves this coming Tuesday. 

Republicans love it: Dark Money now controls Government!

There’s a chance Republicans might be securing themselves a permanent majority party, both statewide and national.

Despite having no unified plan to solve societal problems, Republicans are focused like a laser on being in power forever. They're so sure of themselves that they’re not even worried that someday those the same laws could be used against them by Democrats.

The Dark Money Party: It’s hard to believe anyone would support secret donors pushing completely secret agendas (with the eventual elimination of open records laws), but that's what's happening. Scott Walker just signed into law coordination between campaigns and special interest groups running supposed “issue ads.” Any grownup know those ads are meant to influence elections, but for some reason we can’t honestly and legally say so. AP.

New laws are removing limits on the use and reporting of "dark money" from secret sources. The laws enable coordination between political campaigns and advocacy organizations, something almost all other states forbid.

Common sense tells you something is wrong here.

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, was among those who lobbied against loosening the rules.

"If you legalize the coordination, why would you give $20,000 to Walker when you could give $20,000 to an issue ad group and not have your name disclosed — or you could give an unlimited amount to that same group? It would be stupid to have your name out there if you could do it secretly."

Paul Ryan just Greased the skids to a Corrupt Dark Money free-for-all: It's funny how Walker's latest move fits in with the following jaw dropping addition to the just passed federal omnibus budget deal. Playing off the phony IRS attack on what was an avalanche of tea party groups seeking tax exempt status to influence elections, Ryan slipped this one in. Huffington Post:

A provision buried on page 472 (prevents) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from taking any action to reign in the political activity of 501(c)4 organizations. These organizations weren't originally supposed to engage in political activity at all. In recent years, however, they've become a favorite of anyone who wants to buy political influence without attracting attention. Since there's no legal requirement that 501(c)4 organizations disclose their donors, anyone can use them as a vehicle to pour unlimited money into our political system.

As former Republican Federal Election Commissioner Trevor Potter has pointed out, even foreign nationals and governments could use 501(c)4s to quietly influence U.S. policy.

Let that sink in folks: Rather than allow the IRS to prevent the abuse of tax-exempt nonprofit status for purely political purposes by both parties, Congress has specifically banned the agency from taking any kind of action -- even at the risk of allowing secret foreign money to poison our elections.

This has Paul Ryan's finger prints all over it. He's got a proven track record of radical bills that would scare the living crap out of voters. Take a look at the list HERE. Add to the proliferation of dark money groups this gem...

On a similar note, another provision tucked away on page 1,982 prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from requiring corporations to disclose their political spending.

This is especially outrageous because disclosure is one of the least controversial and most basic steps toward reform the government can take. As noted by the LA Times' Michael Hiltzik, even the Supreme Court made a point of emphasizing the need for disclosure in its widely reviled Citizens United ruling:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority:"With the advent of the Internet ... prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters ... determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests."

Dark Money and Wisconsin Elections.

In another great report from Fox 6's Mike Lowe, the little known story of dark money, and the influence it has on our elections. Sure, "both sides do it," but really, who's left nowadays? It's not the unions.

Like I've always said, there's an entire economy built around the conservative movement, buying influence and employing every right wing loser rejected by real world employers. You could say it's a job creator for the perpetually unskilled.

The reckless dark money spending on irrational conservative organizations with nothing intelligent to say, proves how bad they'd be running the country:

A secret John Doe investigation is exploring the link between Governor Scott Walker’s recall campaign and outside political groups to see if there was any illegal coordination. Outside groups are spending tens of millions of dollars to get candidates elected on both sides of the aisle in Wisconsin.

There's also a nice piece at Cognitive Dissidence on dark money as well.

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.

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...?

Koch influence in Kenosha School Board Race, Sly Protest of Americans for Prosperity and more Vicki McKenna BS.

Our outside electioneers, the Koch brothers Americans for Prosperity group, are now controlling campaigns all over the state. Think what they'll do for Scott Walker.  UPDATED HERE.

Is it just a coincidence that just after voter suppression rules were put in place, out-of-state campaign cash is suddenly flooding in, controlling our issues and candidates for public office?

Conservatives love this stuff, because winning is the bottom line. Like Padme said Star Wars 3, "So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause," or a Walker win.

Kock's in Kenosha School Board Race? It's hard to believe, but true:

Kenosha News: About 60 demonstrators voiced their opinion in front of the Kenosha Unified School District Educational Support Center ... The picketers carried signs critical of the Americans for Prosperity group … Guest speaker John “Sly” Sylvester of Madison talk radio WEKZ-FM 93.7 spoke to the marchers on a megaphone in an effort to “fire up the troops.”

I talked to Sly about the latest rantings from WISN's Vicki McKenna's. McKenna and Kristi Lacroix of AAE Wisconsin tore into Sly for "the bullying tactics used by the Kenosha teachers union at their recent rally." McKenna and Lacroix whined about Madison based Sly injecting himself into Kenosha's election, and yelling at Lacroix's 13 year old daughter. Not only did Sly deny that, he mentioned how Madison based McKenna was there the previous week. Oops.

How dare Sly protest the Koch brothers influence. Remember, citizen participation via unions, via radio hosts, via independent citizen voices is frowned upon by Republicans. Below, McKenna repeated the fabricated story about Sly "screaming" at Lacroix's daughter, which wasn't true. Does she ever confirm anything?



Dark Money and the Koch Brother Invasion: The Kenosha News wrote the following:

Americans for Prosperity … funded by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch … is getting involved with the Kenosha Unified School Board race.

David Fladeboe, state director of AFP, said the organization has a field team working on the race, doing phone banks and canvassing in the district … the group decided to become involved in the race due to the board’s approval of new union contracts … the group is interested in remaining active in Kenosha County beyond School Board politics, saying “We’ll be active in that corner of the state all year.”

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause, a Wisconsin campaign spending watchdog group, said Americans for Prosperity (are involved) in northern Wisconsin where the group has gone after opponents of a proposed iron ore mine … he had not heard of the group being involved in school board races in the state. He called the development “very, very alarming.”

“Obviously the teachers unions have always weighed in, but for the Americans for Prosperity to do it, boy, I have not heard of that in school board races,” Heck said. “It’s a new trend. It’s now in virtually every competitive congressional and legislative race, but now it’s county supervisors and city council members. And now school board members down in Kenosha,” Heck said. “It’s the nationalization of state and local politics in Wisconsin.”

Isn't that the tea party complaint about Common Core, which isn't true by the way. And while McKenna screams about liberal “dark money,” she never mentioned the Koch brothers on her program.

Groups like Americans for Prosperity spend on issue ads … they do not have to report who donates money to their organization. 

Cognitive Dissidence's Jeff Simpson posted this Robert Greenwald video showing what did happen under Koch brothers rule on the Raleigh, N. Carolina school board. I never heard about this outrageous horrific story, which is truly jaw dropping. This is what's really behind school privatization:

  

Liberal Money for Good, Conservative Money for Bad. How easy was that?

The right wing loons, like radio's cancer stick Vicki McKenna, continue to try and justify their billionaire sugar daddies with "examples" of liberal hypocrisy. So now, "dark money" can pour into Republican campaign coffers by corporate billionaires because Democrats are also doing it, kinda, although not in any truly relevant way. Heck, the GOP represents big money...just not all of it yet.

And that's what makes them mad (insanely so).

Nearly 75 percent of the money funneled into the Center for Media and Democracy during 2011 and 2012came from just a few donors whose names have been redacted from tax forms obtained by Watchdog.

This was made more obvious months earlier when WISGOP tried to make Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke's millionaire status a liability. The horror of wealthy liberals...like the evil George Soros. But how that money is used? The differences are intentionally ignored:

According to CMD executive director Lisa Graves … the left is morally superior in its motives.

“The question of conservative funders versus liberal funders, I think, is a matter of false equivalency,” Graves responded. “Quite frankly a number of these (corporate donors) like Koch Industries … they’re advancing not just an ideological agenda but an agenda that helps advance the bottom line of their corporate interests. That’s quite a distinct difference from some of the funders in the progressive universe.”

Makes sense. But this stumps conservatives. McKenna posted this on Facebook. It's laughable enough, but check out the responses. For some reason, they don't mind the idea of dark money, except when liberals have it: