On the sixth anniversary of Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that unleashed the scourge of dark and unlimited election spending into the political process, campaign finance reform advocates are spotlighting the tangible solutions that could loosen the stranglehold of corporate interests on U.S. democracy.
The SCOTUS enabled a lawful, bloodless coup d'etat of our governance, turning control over to monied and corporate interests.
Even though the SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting the laws passed by Congress as well as protecting the Constitution, by enabling this coup d'etat, the integrity of our electoral process is hopelessly compromised.
Their decisions have allowed dark money (assume both foreign and domestic) to control our elections.
But it's not treason to undermine the clear intent behind the Constitution? That's the part that sticks in my craw.
Over sixty percent of polled Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. A possible reason may be the limited choice of one candidate from two parties, viewed by many as two sides of the same coin. One reason Trump and Sanders are getting attention as anti-establishment candidates is because many citizens now believe that: “The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.” Quote, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952. “. ...We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite.” Quote, Senator William Jenner, 1954. Third party candidates have no hope of inclusion under our current flawed, Pay to Play electoral process. Green, Libertarian, and other well qualified candidates seeking new directions in foreign policy, health care, etc. are rarely covered by the corporate press. Sanders, an Independent, by running under label of one of two major parties, only then became eligible to participate in debates, becoming a viable contender. Political innovations can change our deeply impaired political process. Let’s consider public financing of campaigns as one way.
Countries with multiple political parties can increase healthy competition and improve democracy with increased representation.
Take the discussion a step further: Reclaim what for whom? The bottom line is that the rich are now doing to the middle class what the middle class already did to the poor, and the middle class is worried. Politicians are pandering to, and exploiting the nervousness of, working/middle class campaign donors. The Citizens United issue is about regaining some of the advantages that the middle class lost to the mega-rich, to have their own concerns addressed by government.
Democracy? America needs representative government, and no steps have been made to achieve this. The rich have full representation, the middle class have quite a lot, and the poor have none.The middle class want more representation, and want assurance that the poor will continue to have none. This has nothing to do with the values and goals of democracy.
There's no money, no advantage, in representing the poor during this era. The poor aren't the consumers and campaign-donors. That's why Democrats and liberals dumped them.
The SCOTUS upheld the clear statement of The Constitution, First Amendment, Freedom of Speech. Everyone in the USA has that freedom, unlimited.
Your issue was captured in a sentence in the 'Valeo vs. Buckley' SCOTUS decision back in the 1970s: "To enhance one person's freedom of speech of limiting another person's is a concept wholly alien to The Constitution"
That hasn't stopped far-left persons from continuing to whine that we don't have government by the people, it is bought and paid for by the rich. And it hasn't stopped Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer or Pres. Obama from wishing that we had some Constitution other than what we have. And I have heard some far-left persons complain that The Constitution was written by rich white folks to enshrine their privilege. They did not free the slaves. They did not extend the vote to women. They put obstacles in the way poor folk getting the government political economic system that best serves them. Such far-left persons do not consider it treason to seek to set aside the 'old outdated Constitution' and replace it with a modern socialist constitution. ...
It is worth some historic recall. We got The Constitution in order to form a stronger government that could oppose reconquest by the imperial power of the day, Great Britain. Now we are the imperial power. Others around the world can argue that their freedom would be enhanced if the U.S.A. were broken up and forbidden to recombine. (Likely that would have to be accompanied by breaking up the largest national and transnational corporations too. ...)
That sounds like you are speaking of a 'Volkscourt' (Volksgerichtshof).
That is a historic reference. I invite you to Google the term. I will not elaborate it here.
It does raise questions of how to faithfully execute and impartially judge the law.
Something that has been disputed here in the U.S.A. for some years now.