InvestorsHub Logo

fuagf

01/21/11 10:35 PM

#124646 RE: StephanieVanbryce #124566

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations are entitled to spend unlimited
funds in our elections, rolling back a century of modest limits. The First Amendment was never intended to protect corporations.

Click here or scroll down to add your name to the tens of thousands calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse this disastrous decision!

"The Free Speech for People Amendment" Petition:

WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations;

WHEREAS, for the past three decades, a divided United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations from spending their general treasury funds in our elections;

WHEREAS, this corporate takeover of the First Amendment has reached its extreme conclusion in the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC will now unleash a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in United States history;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy;

WHEREAS, the people of the United States have previously used the constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of our democracy and self-government;

Now hereby be it resolved that we the undersigned voters of the United States call upon the United States Congress to pass
and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.


http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190&track=DGRtm

F6

01/23/11 3:44 AM

#124738 RE: StephanieVanbryce #124566

Justice Thomas Omitted His Tea Partying Wife’s Income From Financial Disclosure Forms



By Ian Millhiser on Jan 22nd, 2011 at 4:03 pm

Federal judges and justices are required by law [ http://openjurist.org/title-5/us-code/appendix/102 ] to disclose their spouse’s income — thus preventing persons who wish to influence the judge or justice from funneling money to them through their husband or wife. Yet, as the Los Angeles Times reports [ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story ], Justice Clarence Thomas has not complied with this requirement for years:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas [ http://www.latimes.com/topic/arts-culture/clarence-thomas-PEHST001980.topic ] failed to report his wife’s income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed. [...]

Virginia Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, an organization she founded to restore the “founding principles” of limited government and individual liberty.

In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as “none.” Common Cause contends that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary that year.


This revelation that Justice Thomas failed to comply with his disclosure obligations comes as he is caught up in another ethics scandal regarding his participation in fundraisers for far-right political groups. Thomas once attended a gathering of wealthy corporate activists convened by billionaire Charles Koch to raise money for right-wing political causes [ http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/20/scalia-thomas-koch/ ], and he also attended at least one fundraiser hosted by the far-right think tank that used to employ his wife [ http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/20/scalia-thomas-koch-doj/ ].

A Supreme Court justice lending a hand to a political fundraising event would be a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges [ http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02-OGC-Post2-Code-of-Conduct-for-Judges.pdf ], if it wasn’t for the fact that the nine justices have exempted themselves from much of the ethical rules governing all other federal judges [ http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch03-OGC-Post2USCOURTS-CodeConductJudEmp.pdf ]. Under the Code of Conduct, “a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose,” except in certain very narrow circumstances that don’t apply to the Koch and Heritage fundraisers.

Nor is Thomas the only justice engaged in ethically questionable activities. Justice Antonin Scalia also attended one of Charles Koch’s right-wing fundraising and strategy sessions [ http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/20/scalia-thomas-koch/ ], and Justice Samuel Alito is a frequent speaker [ http://www.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/10/sam-alito-republican-fundraiser/ ] at fundraisers for groups such as the Intercollegiate Studies Institute [ http://www.isi.org/spotlight/wstn_civ_dinner/2009/content/dwc_2009_program.pdf (and see item linked in http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58924827 ) (. . .)] — the corporate front that funded the rise of Republican dirty trickster James O’Keefe [ http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201001270004 ] and that used to employ anti-masturbation activist Christine O’Donnell [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/educating-christine-odonnell-linkedin-gate-lawsuits-and-late-degrees-color-senate-hopefuls-resume.php ].

Worst of all, today’s revelation that Justice Thomas has been submitting incomplete financial disclosures suggests that the conservative justices’ engagement with corporate political advocacy could be much more widespread than previously believed. If the justices are not disclosing their activities, it’s anyone’s guess what they could be hiding.

© 2011 Center for American Progress Action Fund (emphasis in original)

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/22/thomas-disclosure/ [with comments]


=====


also e.g. (items linked in):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=56678331 and preceding

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=55858708 and preceding