
New numbers from the ABC News/Washington Post poll reveal Americans of all political stripes are overwhelmingly upset with the Supreme Court's decision to allow more corporate money into electoral politics.
As the Post reports, the results from the poll are undeniably negative toward the decision. Sixty-five percent of respondents said they were "strongly opposed" to the ruling, with 72% saying they supported congressional action to reinstate the campaign fundraising limits the Supreme Court removed in the Citzens United case.
The negativity cuts equally across party lines, according to the poll.
Eighty-five percent of the Democrats polled were opposed to the ruling, while 76% percent of Republicans and 81% of independents also said they were opposed. The nearly unanimous opposition crosses more than just party lines.
"Indeed, the poll shows remarkably strong agreement about the ruling across all demographic groups, and big majorities of those with household incomes above and below $50,000 alike oppose the decision," the Post's Dan Eggen reported this morning. "Age, race and education levels also appeared to have little relative bearing on the answers."
Darrius
February 17, 2010 9:02 AM
Everyone should hate it; the Supreme Court just gave our entire government over to Corporations, foreign and domestic corporations.
Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE. It was a mistake to ever consider them as such. Hopefully Congress can fix this problem quickly by changing corporate law. If we have to wait on a Constitutional Amendment we probably won't be able to change it without another major war. Public opinion is changed far to easily, especially with corporations buying every single second of television and radio time to lobby for the corporate position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nellieh
February 17, 2010 10:18 AM in reply to Darrius
We are beginning to mirror the Russian Oligarchy. The wealthy and Corporations have all the influence politically. To think a constituent who donates $50.00 to a Representative or Senator would have the same influence as a Corporation or a billionaire on the opposite side of an issue, even if it benefits the majority of people and not the money, the money wins every time. Health reform? Money. Financial reforms? Money. Energy reforms? Money. Cutback contracts to the Military Industrial Complex? Money. Believing we live in a Democracy is delusional! Our politicians are bought and paid for. They have been exposed during the Health care debate, the financial reform debate and the energy debate and have no shame for their hypocrisy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
February 17, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to Darrius
I don't see why Reeps and conservatives would hate this ruling. I mean, don't they realize how much it pisses off liberals? Isn't *that* the real litmus test of what they support?
C'mon conservatives! This ruling was a boon to megacorporations and the wealthy, your base! Dubya even said it was your base! You should be ecstatic about it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Full Boar
February 17, 2010 8:13 PM in reply to Darrius
Corporations are not people? Who runs the coporations? Robots? What you forgot in your far-left rhetoric is that YOU have to pull the lever on elction day. Is anything that the Sierra Club, ACORN, Kroger, Exxon, going to sway you? Then stay home. This decision was a victory for the 1st Amendment. You're afraid that some ad is going to convince you to vote otherwise? You're too simple. Do your own reasearch and let the coporations have their opinion. BTW Microsoft, Democrat. AT&T, Democrat. GE Democrat. NBC,CBS, ABC, Democrat. Last I checked all big corproations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
February 17, 2010 9:12 AM
Nonetheless, I've seen tons of Rethug trolls defend it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BeeClone
February 17, 2010 1:47 PM in reply to docrocktex
Pay me and I'll defend it too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
February 17, 2010 9:14 AM
Bad methodology. Since corporations are people, too, they should be included in the random sample. But I don't think they talked to any corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
storm
February 17, 2010 9:43 AM in reply to Moose49
they are a very small minority
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
February 17, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to storm
Yes, but since money = speech, they count a lot more than most of us ordinary human beings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Headlight
February 17, 2010 9:19 AM
Numbers like these could pass a constitutional aendment, the only real way to fix the problem. While we're at it, maybe we can get rid of the idea that money = speech.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
February 17, 2010 10:03 AM in reply to Headlight
Health care had Numbers like these...
and the Health insurance lobby (corporate money) and their political enablers killed the numbers w/ disinformation. If this issue gains steam the same thing will likely happen accept this time corporations can spend all the money they want to kill the numbers without the loopholes they once had to navigate...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lalo35adm
February 17, 2010 9:27 AM
Yeah yeah, the majority also doesn't think Obama deserves to be reelected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
onecrappyusername
February 17, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to Lalo35adm
Do you support the ruling?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
February 17, 2010 9:29 AM
Since it's so obvious to people of nearly every political stripe, (trolls & tea baggers excepted, of course) why can't we return to the "Happy Days" when concerned citizens, and not just the Birchers, were only too happy to lobby for impeachment of clearly unjudicial Justices?
As long as we have a court majority of Federalist Society cranks, we'll be guaranteed much more of the same. Impeach the bastards! We can't just wait for them to die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonigo
February 17, 2010 10:05 AM in reply to KeithL
I'd have to believe that even the teabaggers would be against the decision - at least among the rank and file. I can't believe they are enamored with the idea of corporations pouring money into election campaigns.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 17, 2010 9:44 AM
Yet the GOP had no problem PROUDLY and LOUDLY announcing their support of it and somehow they won't get punished for that in November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
February 17, 2010 10:01 AM in reply to Viva!America!
They may need to think again with those numbers. It should be pretty clear to most thinking beings that the Republicans have sold out to the corporations and besides, the Republicans APPOINTED THE JUSTICES WHO DID THIS!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 17, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to AJM
Doesn't matter. I didn't get my unicorn or my rainbow last year, so there's no reason at all not to sit out the 2010 election or, for that matter, turn over the White House to them in 2012.
Oh well, whatever happens, I will bear no measure responsibility for the consequences whatsoever. No, it's their fault. If only they'd given my my unicorn and my rainbow, I wouldn't be forced to sulk like Achilles in his tent in November.
And besides, what's the worst thing that could happen? The Corruptocrats have proven there's absolutely no differnce whatsoever between them and the Republicans. It's not like there are any long term consequences for the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
February 17, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Propaganda rule #47: When you've got no rational arguments, pathologize the opposition. NCStrawman makes another preemptive strike, and offers us a fine illustration of the propaganda rule. Well played, sir, you're doing a heckuva job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
February 18, 2010 12:40 AM in reply to Viva!America!
There is absolutely no way in hell any Establishment Democrat would dream of trying to capitalize on Republican support for the Citizens United decision. Absolutely, 100%, no way in hell. You're talking about a species of human being -- an Establishment Democrat with a clue -- that simply does not exist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alexander
February 17, 2010 9:51 AM
Sounds like Amendment time if you ask me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
paulw
February 17, 2010 9:56 AM
A great deal depends here on how far the Gang of Five is willing to go. Any legislative fix is certain to be litigated, and a simple one is going to run up against the same constitutional "reasoning" that produced the CU decision. The only solution may be to actually rework the laws under which corporations are chartered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
February 17, 2010 10:06 AM
First things first, the actual poll doesn't list a question about the ruling. I have little doubt it was phrased to get a predetermined result. But we may never see it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_021010.html
Second, this applies to any group of individuals that want to collectively put out a message. If the Sierra Club wants to run an ad, now they can.
That is free speech for them and any other group, even corporations.
Thirdly, no this doesn't overturn a century's worth of rulings. When McCain-Feingold passed this challenge was expected, as was the result.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 17, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to shooter242
Gross 2008 revenue of the Sierra Club: $48,351,933.00
Gross 2008 revenue of Exxon: $477,350,000,000.00
Disparity in the amount of speech Exxon can buy vs. what the Sierra Club can buy too much for you to wrap your little doggie brain around? Try it this way: Exxon's 2008 gross revenue was ten thousand times as much as the Sierra Club's.
Thirty seconds of ad time on national television last year ran from $419,000 for a half a minute during "Grey's Anatomy" to $208,000.00 for half a minute on some lower rated show like "Survivor." (Monday Night Football rates were in the 300k range.)
So, basically, if the Sierra Club shut down everything else, stopped paying it's vendors and devoted it's entire gross income (ignoring the 19 million loss it had on investments last year), it could afford to buy about twenty or thirty minutes of ad time on national television--a bit more if it limited itself to poorly-rated shows or shows only watched by people least likely to give a damn about their message. Then it would have to shut its doors and declare bankruptcy.
Exxon could spend one tenth of one percent of its gross and buy two or three hundred minutes. Year after year after year.
Yeah, totally level playing field there, moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SergStrizh
February 17, 2010 7:02 PM in reply to shooter242
shooter242, you got it wrong; the actual poll DOES list the question about the ruling. It is # 35 in the link you provided!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SergStrizh
February 17, 2010 7:06 PM in reply to shooter242
And by the way, the question was stated very clearly and directly.
It is clear that the Supreme Court decision SHOULD BE ANNULLED.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jbigss1965
February 17, 2010 7:56 PM in reply to SergStrizh
Shooter=troll FAIL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wimomma
February 17, 2010 10:07 AM
Even with 78 - 80% support, the repuc will label the amendment the "Anti-American Amendment" and Faux will discuss it's unpatriotic underpinnings and how it muffles
freedom of speech and in 6 months these polls will be 50%.
The formula is like watching Scooby Do cartoons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 17, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to wimomma
Yep. Except for the part where the villian's plan to reap a vast fortune by scaring the thick-headed locals works like a charm because he buried those meddlin' kids and the talking dog and alive in the basement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kinkistyle
February 17, 2010 10:07 AM
Justice Alito just mouthed "SCREW YOU" to all 72% of the haters out there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dweb823
February 17, 2010 10:17 AM
Headlight said:
While we're at it, maybe we can get rid of the idea that money = speech.
According to Alito, money = FREE speech.
If the issue was free speech, how come Alito and Roberts had to spend so much time talking about the money?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EvanR
February 17, 2010 10:22 AM
Corporations united in unlimited spending couldn't possibly have any influence on stopping a long, drawn-out amendment campaign, could they? Watch the creatively shameless astroturfing begin. Several amendment campaigns have begun with promising momentum, only to become bogged down as interests and lobbies divide supporters, confuse the public, widen the scope of conflict and place immense pressure on legislators at the federal and state levels...But an amendment campaign is still surely worth a try. WIn or lose, it's a terrible mistake to cede the mantle of economic populism to the right, and the idea that average people deserve an audible voice in their government solely to tea party reactionaries and conspiracy theorists. The simplistic conflation of money with speech has been a terrible barrier to the fair functioning of political campaigns and representative government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cimabuehw
February 17, 2010 10:22 AM
Rational people know who the bosses are on the conservative side of the equation. Republican rank and file apparently haven't figured out who is really running their game. As my Republican uncle explained to me prior to 2001, "The big boys will keep the dogs in the kennels." Whether or not the Republican rank and rile love or hate this court decisions matter not at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
February 17, 2010 10:29 AM
And what are the politicians doing about it? There should be a bill on the House and Senate Floor today and force the GOP to vote against it. Get it on the floor when people care about it, while passions are sort of high. How easy would it have been to pass a Financial Reform Bill last April?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
February 17, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
a bill or an amendment - doesn't matter. Force the rethugs to vote (or filibuster) on it. Get them on the record as serving their corporate masters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Judea
February 17, 2010 10:41 AM
The main culprit in all of this, are the lobbyists. The right of corporations to lobby is a right taken by force. Show me the court case granting them such a right. Obama is a constitutional law professor he knows he can kick out the lobbyist, tomorrow if he wants to.
There was never a case granting corporate person hood to pieces of paper. The right by corporations to lobby the Government to redress a grievance has never been granted or litigated in court. Corporations took this right by force. Here are the grounds to kick them all out. The facts are these, Corporations
Can't be sworn in court,
Can't hold public office,
Can't be arrested,
and Can't vote.
When corporations can physically do the above then, they should have the right to lobby. Until then all form of Corporate lobbyists should be banned. Period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tduff
February 17, 2010 10:42 AM
This decision is just stupid. I do not get their thinking at all.
http://randomthoughtstd.blogspot.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Judea
February 17, 2010 10:48 AM
I trully hope that next time Scalia, Roberts or Alito go out to a restaurant, that the cook mix some excrement in with their food. They deserve no less than that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
February 17, 2010 11:58 AM
The 5: "So?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jonez
February 17, 2010 12:11 PM
The Supreme court is majority conservative. Naturally, the conservatives think that more money in unlimited advertising will prevent another Obama (black guy) from taking office. Obviously by a multitude of swift boat type tactics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kmac
February 17, 2010 12:26 PM
The Supreme court is majority conservative. Naturally, the conservatives think that more money in unlimited advertising will prevent another Obama (black guy) from taking office.
**************************************
Finally I see in actual print another who sees the Party of Obstructionists realistically is racist but "political correctness" prohibits most from expressing it openly. Let's get it out in the open and discuss it! Stop allowing it to be the elephant in the room that no one knows what to do with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scots5
February 17, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to kmac
Well lets see, unions did not fall under this law. What are unions but corporations. Why shouldn't they be regulated also?
The news media was exempt from the law. Who reports the news? corporations. Why shouldn't they be regulated under this law?
If you read some of the news stories I read during the 2008 election, these news should be regulated more than any other corporations, I have never seen such propaganda pieces for a candidate.
Now, lets look at some of these corporations. If I form a corporation because it is the best way to protect my interest in the small business I own, why should my rights under the FIRST AMENDMENT be restricted because I choose to incorporate?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tarry Faster
February 18, 2010 11:18 AM
If you would like to see a startling visual representation of the difference between the financial aspects of our electoral processes and corporate "money/speech," then follow this link:
http://www.cloudbyte.com/spending.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?