CT Blue

According to Mother Jones, the Supreme Court is about to lay the groundwork for handing corporate America yet another weapon in its continuing campaign to complete its hostile takeover of America, once again in the name of free speech.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Doe v. Reed, a case from Washington state that looks at whether the public disclosure of referendum petitions violates signers’ First Amendment rights to privacy, free association, and free speech. While important on its own, Reed is also a warm-up for cases coming down the pipeline in California and Maine over whether disclosing the names of campaign donors violates free speech rights by exposing contributors to harassment and other unpleasantness. Together, these cases form a backdoor assault on one of the most accepted tenets of clean elections: that the public should be able to see where the money is coming from.

The plaintiff’s are people who signed petitions trying to restrict gay marriage. They don’t want people to know that they’re bigots.

It’s my understanding that the names of the people who sign petitions have to be checked to make sure they are legally entitled to sign it. There is a legitimate state interest in getting the names. I have to believe that even today’s Supreme Court would agree that a state has a legitimate interest in insuring that referenda are only held when real people actually want them. The issue, I assume, is whether the names should be subject to FOIA type laws.

As a matter of course the names of the people who vote are subject to such disclosure, but of course, it’s technically impossible to tell how they voted, at least we all hope it is, so in theory that would prevent harassment. Only that’s not really true, because if you are of a certain race, and live in certain parts of the country, you run the risk of being harassed merely for voting. It’s hard to see how the logic of a decision in favor of the bigots that took this issue to court would not also bar disclosure of voting records.

This is not akin to the civil rights era association cases (mentioned in the full article) because the members of the NAACP were not attempting to avail themselves of a state remedy; they were purely and simply trying to associate with one another. People who sign such petitions are injecting themselves into the legislative process. The right to free speech does not imply the right to anonymous speech in all cases. For years courts have upheld statutes requiring campaign materials to identify the source of those materials. Lobbyists must register and declare the names of their clients; should those clients be allowed to remain anonymous because the fear being held accountable for the positions they are taking?

But before we get too overwrought about this, we should recall that corporations, and indeed extremely rich individuals, can already anonymously influence both the public discourse and individual elections. All they have to do is create a front group, such as the recently founded Stop too Big to Fail, a “grassroots” group founded and funded by corporate lobbyists, the objective of which is, of course, to Preserve too Big to Fail. (Like housing developments, these groups are usually name after what they destroy, e.g. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth).

The present corporate friendly Supreme Court has adopted what some deluded ACLU types (and I’m a card carrying member, but not deluded) see as a strict construction of the First Amendment, but it’s really a philosophy that holds that the guy with the biggest megaphone has a constitutional right to drown out everyone else.

As an aside, isn’t it interesting that the right wing types who don’t believe a woman has a privacy right in her own body (and this includes at least five justices) have no trouble discerning a right to privacy for people who voluntarily choose to sign a petition.

Lindsey Graham appears to have done a favor for the Democrats, by bowing out of the climate bill talks. His ostensible reason-that Reid may take immigration up first-makes no sense. Whatever his motivation for doing it now-and Digby probably nails it here-this moment was inevitable, and so far as I can see this is a case of better now than later.

This is a familiar pattern. You might say that the Republicans, for each major bill, have one or more designated “bi-partisan” persons whose job it is to water down the bill sufficiently to make it ineffective, and then, usually, vote against it anyway. Graham follows Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe on the stimulus bills (who, I have to admit, had the grace to vote for the bill that they had gutted), Grassley and Snowe on the Health Care bill, and Corker (if he can get away with it) on the financial regulation bill.

In each case their definition of bi-partisanship has been pretty much the same-58 Democrats should defer to one Republican on every issue, or the bill is not bi-partisan.

According to this morning’s Times the Democrats may be headed for some major losses in November. This may be the case, though there’s a long way to go until then, and they may still pull off a miracle and get their rhetorical act in order. They have a better chance of avoiding major disaster by sticking to their alleged principles than by caving at every turn and still getting nothing.

It’s asking too much, of course, but they should be actively signaling that if they continue to control Congress in January the filibuster will die a quick death. Better to go down because you have done what you claim to believe in than because you allowed the other side to prevent you from doing anything.

If the Democrats do lose this autumn, here is the lesson they will likely draw: that they must tack to the right and mollify the people who will never vote for them. This is the lesson they take from every defeat. They will take this lesson even if the raw data shows that their base stayed home on election day. The cant of the pundits trumps objective reality every time so far as the Democrats are concerned.

This Hullabaloo post got me thinking. Digby discusses a blog post by a fellow named Dennis Praeger whining about the fact that the left has imposed anti-smoking ordinances on the good Americans on the right.

There is a tendency, more pronounced (I think) on the right than the left, but general enough, to place issues on a left right continuum when doing so makes absolutely no sense. Why, in this country, the question of religious faith, against all the evidence, has become a left-right issue. Against all the evidence, conservatives are religious and left wingers atheistic or godless, while the truth is far more murky. I mean Karl Rove doesn’t even believe in god.

The smoking issue seems even more ludicrous. I am a very political person, but I wasn’t that political when early on, before I received my first communion, I developed an abiding loathing for tobacco. In my case, it was exposure to concentrated second hand smoke in the car, for at the time my mother smoked like a chimney. I don’t recall politics having anything to do with it. I suspect that if one were to poll on the issue one would find antipathy to tobacco spread rather evenly across the political spectrum.

What’s amazing, as Digby’s post illustrates, is how easily we allow ourselves to fall into this left-right trap in situations where it really makes no sense. Let me hasten to add that I can conjure up both a left and right wing case for both sides of the tobacco issue, so it won’t work to say that restrictions on smoking offend right wing libertarian principles.