Nader and other national politicians react to recent Supreme Court ruling

WINSTED — Consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader stopped by The Winsted Journal’s Main Street office last week on the heels of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision to overturn limits on corporate spending on political campaign advertising.

“This is historically one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever made,� the Winsted native said. “This means that if there’s a weapons system that Lockheed Martin wants, they can write unlimited checks, or if the drug companies have a drug they don’t want Uncle Sam to negotiate lower prices on, they can buy off the government.�

Nader has been attacking unregulated corporate excesses for decades and said he would spend some time at home reading the full decision of the Supreme Court, which he said smacks of partisanship. The 5-4 vote was rendered along political ideological lines, with many Republicans celebrating the decision, while Democrats all the way up to President Barack Obama criticized the ruling as a radical decision in favor of special interests.

“This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy,� Obama said in his weekly radio address. “It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.�

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd agreed with the president and Nader.

“What a terrible day for American democracy,� he said in a statement. “With this 5-4 decision, a deeply divided Supreme Court has essentially given corporations free rein to drown out the voices of the American people, rejecting the sacred democratic principle of ‘one person, one vote.’

“By overturning the century-old cornerstone of our campaign finance laws, they have opened the floodgates of direct corporate spending, allowing our political discourse and the legislative process to be further corrupted by huge corporations.

“I intend to pursue every legislative option — including a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the states to put appropriate limits on campaign spending — to restore the trust and voice of the American people.�

Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ), sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, aka the McCain-Feigold Act, expressed differing levels of displeasure with the Supreme Court ruling, which overturned provisions in their legislation. Feingold called the ruling “a terrible mistake,� while McCain acknowledged disappointment.

The case in question, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was originally brought to determine whether or not a political documentary movie critical of Hillary Clinton (“Hillary: The Movie�) could be considered political advertising and subjected to campaign spending limits. In ruling in favor of Citizens United, the court made broad changes to campaign finance law, striking down campaign rules related to corporations and unions, which the court said have the same rights as individual citizens.

Last week’s decision reverses a ban on issue advertising in the 30 days immediately before a primary and 60 days before a general election. The ruling allows corporations and unions to spend general treasury funds on ads naming candidates.

In Republican circles, reactions to last week’s ruling were celebratory, with conservative groups hailing the decision as a victory for free speech.

“For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process,� Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in a televised statement. “With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups.�

Prior to his visit to The Journal, Nader released his own statement to the press, calling for a constitutional amendment to limit corporate campaign contributions.

“It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees [PACs], which solicit employees and shareholders for donations,� he said. “With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.�

Nader reiterated last week during his visit to The Journal that he will continue to call for a constitutional amendment, but he also noted that too many people are not paying attention to the issue.

“Too many people are busy watching ESPN,� he said. “They’re not paying attention, and that’s what it all comes down to. When they hear the rumbles of people, they’ll start paying attention.�