Close, But Not Quite

Ever since I gave Sen. Pat Leahy some change from my couch, he's been sending me emails. Here one he sent yesterday:

The U.S. Supreme Court just decided to create a new "constitutional right" for corporations to pour unlimited funds into elections.

President Obama rightly took a few moments to address this misguided decision during his State of the Union address last night, saying, "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."

This morning I took some time on the other side of the Capitol to address my Senate colleagues and the American people about the grave implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

Corporations have been barred from spending unlimited funds on political races for as long as you and I have lived. For good reason: The typical Fortune 500 company need only spend a small fraction of its profits on political ads to drown out the un-amplified voices of individual citizens.

This Supreme Court decision creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.

Corporations are not people. They do not have the same rights, morals, or ideals of individual citizens. Nor do they vote or participate in elections the same way individuals do.

But the conservative activist wing of the Supreme Court -- now large enough to comprise a majority on the bench -- sees things differently. That's why they decided to ignore well-established, commonsense precedent in deciding this case, as well as the wishes of Congress. I am disappointed that these Justices, who as nominees professed their commitment to judicial modesty and restraint, could so brazenly overstep their bounds and override the rule of law.

I was particularly alarmed by Justice Alito during last night's State of the Union address, blurting out "not true" as the President spoke of the decision. It was bad enough when a Congressman from South Carolina pulled that kind of a stunt during last year's address. It is completely and utterly inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice -- who has sworn to apply the law impartially and rise above partisan politics -- to do the same.

If we are to begin this decade anew and recommit ourselves to achieving a new kind of politics, as President Obama so eloquently urged last night, we must come together -- Democrats and Republicans -- to restore the ability of every individual citizen to be heard and participate in our democracy.

As I work with the White House and my colleagues in Congress to mitigate the harm done by this decision, I hope you will join me in taking meaningful action to help right this terrible wrong.

Thank you for all that you do to defend our democracy.

Overall, I don't disagree with the tone and his argument, but I have to point out that Justice Alito (who I'm no real fan of, BTW) did not "blurt out" the words "not true;" he mouthed it. Was it a politically-instinctive reaction a la "You Lie?" Sure. But Alito didn't yell it. No one would have known what he did if it weren't for the cameras.

Anyway, Leahy has a point. It won't be long before corporations decide to cut out the middle man/woman and run for office it/themselves.