Thursday, July 5, 2012

California Legislature Approves Wieckowski Resolution To Overturn Citizens United

LEGISLATURE | The California State Legislature approved a resolution Thursday calling on Congress to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's still-contentious Citizens United decision that essentially ruled corporate campaign contributions amounted to free speech.

The resolution was initially offered by Fremont Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski and Assemblyman Michael Allen of Sonoma. The State Senate voted along party lines, 24-11, to approve the resolution. The State Assembly also passed the resolution last March.

Critics of the decision say it has already unleashed a torrent of unregulated campaign dollars potentially skewing power towards the rich. "Today's vote sends a clear message that California rejects this misguided ruling made by the conservative activists on the Supreme Court," said Wieckowski. "If Congress doesn't act, our electoral process will be more dominated by millionaires and billionaires and their concerns will drown out the voice of common Americans."

Although, the State Senate's action is merely symbolic, it does give voice to the rising tenor of anger from California liberals who fear the power to influence elections at all levels of government could be decided by the wealthy few. During the recent Republican presidential primaries, for example, three candidates, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain were separately bankrolled by three wealthy businessman.

"Since the decision, large corporations and the wealthy have dominated campaign spending," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg. "We must tip the scales back to a balance that once again gives a strong voice to the people."

The Legislature's support for overturning Citizens United makes it the biggest and most influential group yet to register official disapproval of the controversial decision. Five other state legislatures have passed similar resolutions, including, Hawaii, New Mexico, Maryland, Vermont and Rhode Island.


  1. By MW:

    While it is true that those, and especially under the present rules, who have a lot of money can sometimes overpower the voices of those with much less money, however far and away the biggest reason of all for the public not being properly and fully informed is the laziness, incompetence, and general uselessness of the mainstream media.

    In other words, there are all sorts of important stories the media does not report due to such reasons as: one, laziness; two, incompetence; three, most reporters not wanting to embarrass their friends, and such as certain high ranking officials they are far too friendly with; and four, in many cases it being against the prevailing customs and etiquette to discuss certain items.

    For example, let's say the California State Assembly votes by a margin of 30-29 for a bill that is generally considered to be extremely big business friendly and very anti consumer, and with Assemblyman XYZ, and who pretends to be a great liberal and defender and protector of the little people, however still voting for the bill.

    So therefore the bill passes, and with the help of demagogue Assemblyman XYZ who pretends to represent the ordinary working man, but who is actually in the pocket of anyone who provides him with the lightly disguised bribes that we call large election campaign contributions. (And it is also quite possible that he is also getting a ton of under table bribes, however that is something I perhaps will discuss at a future time.)

    However one of the dirty little secrets in regard to the operating rules of the California State Assembly is that as soon as the vote is concluded, any member of the Assembly can then go up to the Clerk and say that he has changed his mind in regard to the bill, and therefore wants to be recorded as having voted the other way.

    So that means, and believe it not, that it will be then be recorded in the Assembly's records, AND ALSO REPORTED IN THE NEWSPAPERS IN ASSEMBLYMAN XYZ's DISTRICT, that Assemblyman XYZ voted against the bill, and even though actually he voted for the bill.

    More specifically, while the official tally of 30-29 stands, and therefore the extremely big business friendly bill remains as passed, and in fact by a margin of only 30 to 29, HOWEVER DEMAGOGUE AND CHARLATAN ASSEMBLYMAN XYZ IS RECORDED AS HAVING VOTED AGAINST THE BILL, AND RATHER THAN FOR THE BILL.

    And generally the mainstream media wil not tell you about such things, and and including since most reporters are far too friendly with the politicians they cover.

    In other words our totally corrupt government, and which is also much too infested with tons of sleazy lawyers, is really little more than a choreographed, sleazy, and phony stage show of demagogues, charlatans, parasites, pathological liars, and two faced scumbags who pretend to be serving us, but who actually are primarily in the business of stabbing us in the back and selling us downriver.

  2. That is not new information^^^

  3. Great job, Bob!

  4. By MW:

    To 1:25PM.

    At least some of the info I posted is new, since how many people were already aware the CA State Assembly has what amounts to a secret system of two sets of books to "indicate" whether each of its members voted "for" or "against" a particular bill.

    If most of the general public was aware of the fact that lawyers have far and away the highest rates of drug abuse, and including to heroin, cocaine, and meth, of any major profession (and as a sidelight, lawyers, and many of whom are drug addicts, and such as for instance Nadia Lockyer, compose of huge percentage of high ranking public officials), in regard to the Diane Whipple/Robert Noel/Marjorie Knoller case, the public would have realized that a very likely cause of those two dogs going totally crazy was that there were very likely tons of illegal drugs in Noel and Knoller's residence, and if so, then very likely the dogs got into the drugs shortly before their explosive encounter with Diane Whipple.

    (NOTE: That is the type of thing the totally corrupt California State Bar, in other words the organization that pretends to regulate California's lawyers and which also pretends to protect the general public from crooked lawyers, does not want the media and the general public to know about, and including since it does not want the public to learn how super extremely sleazy and almost totally drug infested the legal profession actually is.)

    And for instance when Harvey Hereford, a lawyer who had his office in San Francisco, and when he had enough alcohol in him to float a battleship, got into an auto accident that resulted in one person being killed and another being paralyzed, the SF Chronicle emphasized the "point" that Hereford was a Santa Rosa lawyer, since Hereford lived in Santa Rosa, and even though his office was in SF.

    So when I phoned the Chronicle about that and said Hereford was a SF lawyer and NOT a Santa Rosa lawyer, the writer of the article said to me, "We don't want to talk about that." In other words, the Chronicle often engages in deliberate and intentional lies so as to protect the reputation of SF.

    And after the second of the two largest fires SF has had in decades occurred (the clowns in SF's arson "investigation" squad declared both fires were caused by bad luck rather than arson, and even though it would have been obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than his shoe size that almost certainly both fires were caused by arson), I then phoned the Chronicle and told one of its reporters that both fires actually had a link to a certain real estate firm on Kearny Street in SF, and again the reporter told me that, "We don't want to talk about that." Instead the Chronicle, and rather than letting the public learn that SF is loaded to the hilt with organized crime, and including guys associated with organized crime who arrange multi million dollar arson fires, pretended to believe the lies and garbage from the SFFD's arson "investigation" squad that both fires had supposedly been caused by bad luck, and even though it was obvious that almost certainly they both had been caused by arson.

    And when M.L. "Larry The Liar" Lawrence was dug up out of Arlington National Cemetery after his history as a "war hero" was debunked (you can read a tiny bit about world class pathological liar and all around con man Lawrence in Wikipedia by typing in the name "M. Larry Lawrence" or "Maurice Larry Lawrence"), none of the politicians, and nor any of the newspapers, wanted to talk about such facts as that: one, Dianne Feinstein had made it her personal project to get Lawrence approved as the US Ambassador to Switzerland; and two, Lawrence was also the primary owner of SF's China Basin Building when it went up in flames at 3AM in the morning, and in the largest fire SF has had in decades.