Congressional Democrats have just introduced a new package of legislation – the DISCLOSE Act – to blunt the Supreme Court’s disastrous January ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which opened American elections at all levels to unlimited corporate spending. The 5-4 ruling gave companies like Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil the same right as individual Americans to spend money in elections, but unlike you or me these companies have billions in the bank and billions more at stake in Congress and state legislatures.

Now Democrats are racing to pass legislation before a wave of corporate cash sweeps through the mid-term elections. They have overwhelming public opinion on their side, but the US Chamber of Commerce and other corporate lobbyists are working hard to head them off and time is short.

The newly unveiled DISCLOSE Act is all about forcing election spending out into the open, where it belongs. Thanks to the Roberts Court, giant companies can spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose candidates – without disclosing a dime of it. They can simply pass the money through a front group or PR agency. The legislation would close this glaring loophole, as Sen. Chuck Schumer explained on Thursday:

Our bill will follow the money. In cases where corporations try to mask their activities through shadow groups, we drill down so that ultimate funder of the expenditure is disclosed.

Corporations would be required to disclose political spending to their shareholders, and a broad array of corporations and advocacy groups would be required to disclose previously confidential details about their political spending, including funding sources. Foreign corporations, government contractors, and recipients of government bail-outs would be altogether banned from spending money in elections.

The DISCLOSE Act is a huge first step in restoring genuine democracy in the wake of the Roberts Court's irresponsible activism, but it's just a first step. Only a constitutional amendment or new ruling by a more progressive Supreme Court can truly 'fix' Citizens United.

In the meantime, maybe we should require politicians to wear the logos of their "sponsors." Hey, if it works for NASCAR, why not Congress:

Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli has been in the news a lot lately. You may have heard about the letter he wrote earlier this month to all of Virginia’s public colleges – UVA, VA Tech, William and Mary, etc. calling on them to drop policies banning discrimination against gays and lesbians. He claims they have no legal authority to adopt such policies.

Or maybe you heard Cuccinelli speculate about whether President Obama was born in the United States. In this recently unearthed recording from the campaign trail, Cuccinelli can be heard telling a birther that he might be able to challenge federal laws on the basis of Obama’s birth place:

Cuccinelli has since dashed off a denial, but the fun doesn’t stop there.

In another recently unearthed recording, Cuccinelli told a crowd that he’s worried about the government tracking his family. He said he might not register his newborn son for a Social Security number because "it is being used to track you." He also claimed that many other Americans aren’t registering for Social Security numbers for the same reason:

We're gonna have our 7th child on Monday, if he's not born before. And, for the very concerns you state, we're actually considering – as I'm sure many of you here didn't get a Social Security number when you were born, they do it now – we're considering not doing that. And a lot of people are considering that now, because it is being used to track you.

Cuccinelli’s hard line against gays, paranoia about the Social Security Administration, and openness to birther conspiracies prove that he is the real deal – a bona fide Teabagger of the highest order. And now he’s the chief legal officer of an entire state.

For anyone wondering what a Tea Party-controlled GOP might look like, keep your eyes on Virginia.

Bob Marshall is the Virginia Republican legislator who recently made a name for himself by claiming that God punishes women who have abortions by giving them disabled children.

Now we have footage of the guy who introduced Marshall at last week’s anti-Planned Parenthood press conference in Richmond, and it ain’t pretty.

Rev. Joe Ellison – with Marshall at his back – vouched for Pat Robertson and said that God punished Haitians with an earthquake because they practice voodoo. Then he introduced Marshall as a "warrior who will fight for our cause." Two minutes later, Marshall made his infamous remarks about God punishing women who have abortions. Here's Ellison, in the video above:

"From a spiritual standpoint, we think the Dr. Robertson was on target about Haiti, in the past, with voodoo. And we believe in the Bible that the practice of voodoo is a sin, and what caused the nation to suffer. Those who read the Bible and study the history know that what Dr. Robertson said was the truth."

Does Marshall stand behind Ellison and his remarks on Haiti? He would no doubt say no. After all, he is running away from his own remarks and lashing out at the student-run Capital News Service, which broke the story and ran circles around veteran statehouse reporters.

But the video of Marshall’s remarks speaks for itself, and the Ellison video is the nail in the coffin. Both men – like Pat Robertson – believe that God exacts vengeance on those who do not follow their peculiar and ultraconservative interpretation of the Bible.

Marshall is entitled to his offensive views, but he should not run from them. Pat Robertson, if there’s one thing you can say about him, at least has the courage of his convictions.

You remember Ken Blackwell, don’t you? He’s the guy who in 2004 served simultaneously as Ohio Secretary of State and co-chair of the Committee to Re-Elect George W. Bush. He used, and abused, his office to help the Bush campaign – including rejecting voter registration forms that weren’t on 80-pound paper stock.

Anyway, he must have been prepping for CPAC when he wrote his latest op-ed on FoxNews.com. Here’s what he said about the Obama administration:

What we are witnessing right now is an anti-Christian programmatic pogrom. What is a “pogrom” it’s the word that describes anti-Jewish raids by Cossacks and others in czarist Russia, but a programmatic pogrom best describes what is happening right now. These are not isolated attacks. And while we no longer have Cossacks to threaten, we now have left-wing bloggers who actually call themselves Kossacks (after the Daily Kos).

A “pogrom,” let’s recall, is “an organized massacre of helpless people; specifically: such a massacre of Jews.” And Blackwell, who most recently served as the vice chair of the RNC Platform Committee, contends that President Obama’s nominees would be leaders of this “pogrom” if confirmed.

He said this about Dawn Johnsen, who was nominated a year ago to lead the Office of Legal Counsel: “If she is confirmed, we will see a radical anti-Catholic, pro-abortion zealot influencing policy throughout the Justice Department—but also policy throughout the entire federal government.”

Johnsen, as it happens, is Christian and teaches Sunday School. She has prominent Republican supporters and a sterling record of commitment to the rule of law. But Blackwell thinks her confirmation is on par with the mass slaughter of Jews.

But he didn’t stop there. He also singled out Chai Feldblum, Obama’s pick to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, saying that “if confirmed, she would be in position to pursue the pogrom nationwide.” As Ben Smith pointed out, Feldblum is a “Jewish law professor and disability rights scholar… whose father survived the Holocaust in the forests of Poland after losing most of his family.”

Feldblum is also a widely acclaimed academic and vigorous advocate for religious freedom. But that doesn’t matter to Blackwell, who isn’t really big on rational argument. As Rabbi David Saperstein wrote today, “Blackwell’s use of rhetoric invoking the pogroms, the widespread destruction of countless Jewish lives in Eastern Europe, is aimed at quashing reasoned political discourse,” and it “desecrates the memory of those who died in the pogroms.”

One thing is clear, Blackwell isn't trying to convince people – he’s trying to incite them. So will the RNC and Republican leaders denounce the remarks or just pretend not to notice? I think we all know the answer.

DOWNLOADS: (4969)

PLAYS: (8758)

Embed

Last week the Supreme Court – in the disastrous Citizens United decision – effectively opened up American elections to unlimited spending by foreign governments and corporations. President Obama rightly called the court out last night in his SOTU address:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people.

But not everyone was applauding. Justice Alito was busy shaking his head, pantomiming, and mouthing “not true” to no one in particular (watch here).

Not surprisingly, right-wing bloggers have jumped to Alito’s defense and accused the president of lying. They point to existing bans on electioneering by foreigners and foreign companies. But that’s only part of the story.

There aren’t any restrictions on US subsidiaries of foreign corporations or on foreign-controlled US corporations. And thanks to the Supreme Court, these companies can spend billions on electing or picking off American politicians at all levels of government. This isn’t just some little loophole, it’s a gaping breech in our democracy.

As Justice Stevens argued in his eloquent dissent, the court’s ruling “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.” Amazingly, the same conservatives who go apoplectic over the slightest whiff of foreign influence – such as when Obama bows ceremoniously to a foreign leader – have embraced that view.

They don’t seem to mind that Lukoil (Kremlin Inc.), Citgo (Hugo Chavez LLC), Aramco (King Fahd and Sons Co.), and countless other multinational corporations – including those run as business arms of foreign governments – now have a free hand to influence the government from top to bottom.

In fact, the conservative justices raised and then summarily dismissed the issue in their opinion:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process.

Truly incredible. They happily overturned over a century of precedent, but they worried that it might be presumptuous of them to limit foreign influence in American elections.

Now, there are naysayers out there who argue that foreign corporations won’t try to buy US elections because they’re required to disclose such activities and would risk alienating customers and creating controversy. Sadly, that’s wrong.

Corporations can now transfer money to trade associations (American Petroleum Institute), so-called advocacy groups (FreedomWorks), PR firms (Creative Response Concepts, the creators of swift-boating), or any variety of shell corporation/front group and spend unlimited amounts on attack ads, robocalls, direct mail, canvassing, etc. – all without any disclosure whatsoever.

But Republican leaders in Washington don’t seem to mind. In fact, they’re calling this a leveling of the playing field and a boon to the American middle class. It’s obvious that they expect the bulk of foreign cash will be spent on their behalf.

We can’t stand by as the GOP sells out the US to the highest bidder, foreign or domestic. As the president mentioned, there’s newly introduced legislation in Congress that would ban electioneering by foreign interests. We should pass it quickly, along with public financing of campaigns. But Congress can only chip away at the edges of the ruling. American democracy will be in grave danger until Citizens United is overruled by a constitutional amendment or the court itself.

The case we've all been waiting for – and dreading – is finally here. Citizens United v. FEC started off as an insignificant case about an anti-Hillary film, but the Roberts Court turned it into a vehicle for radically expanding the influence of corporations.

Here's the bottom line to today's 5-4 ruling: giant corporations can spend as much as they please on elections to advance their agendas. The right-wing Roberts court ruled that Exxon has the same free speech rights as you and me. In other words, Exxon is a person too.

While companies still won't be able to give directly to federal candidates, they'll be able to spend billions on attack ads, robocalls, and direct mail. You know, just like you and I are free to do.

Chief Justice Roberts claimed over and over during his hearing that he would respect precedent, exercise restraint, and issue narrow rulings. Well, we got to see the real John Roberts today. He'll gladly set aside principle and precdent whenever it suits his ideology. He cares about equal rights, you see. It's just that some rights are more equal than others.

So now that the highest court in the land has privileged corporations over people in elections, what can be done? Well, we don't really have a choice. We need to fight the ruling in Congress, fight it in the courts, and fight it in campaigns this fall.

The backlash has already begun. Campaign finance champion Russ Feingold has vowed to "pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible." Alan Grayson will pursue legislation in the House. And a constitutional amendment could even be in the works. Stay tuned.

If you’re a United States Senator and your house burns down, you don’t have to sleep out on the street. You have money, a staff, and wealthy friends. In other words, you have options.

So it’s pretty telling that when Senator Brownback’s condo caught fire back in 2000, he moved in with the manic, apocalyptic preacher Lou Engle. We know this thanks to a new video unearthed by Bruce Wilson.

Watch Engle explain – as only he can – how his pairing with Brownback came about:

In case you’re not familiar with Engle, he leads the IHOP – the International House of Prayer – which works to hasten the End Times. He’s also the founder (and voice-over talent) of militant, right-wing prayer rallies like this anti-Prop 8 event:

Miraculously, Brownback didn’t come to hate Engle after living with him for 7 months. In fact, the former roomies appeared together last week at the Family Research Council’s “PrayerCast” against healthcare reform. Who knows…maybe having Engle around makes Brownback feel reasonable?

[Bonus footage: watch Engle talk about the “hot blood” of Latinos and claim that his spittle is holy water]

Let’s say that you’re a run-of-the-mill teabagger looking to set yourself apart from the mob. Nazi/Hitler signs tend to go over well, but that’s so not original. You could strap an assault rifle to your back – like this guy did outside an Obama speech – but that’s so not subtle.

Do not fret. Thanks to Zazzle.com, you can find just the right product to push you over the edge from workaday winger to racist extremist.

Want to encourage, or joke about, President Obama’s death? Check out this line of "Bullet holes anti Obama Bumper Stickers:"

Don’t forget to pick up a t-shirt for that special woman in your life:

Maybe you’re a little paranoid about the Secret Service and would rather joke about killing the president’s supporters rather than Obama himself, no problem:

Or maybe you’d prefer to have your dog joke about killing the president instead. What’s the Secret Service gonna do, arrest Fido?

If you’d prefer to be a little more oblique about threatening Obama, while no less offensive, these are for you:

The above designs are all the handiwork of a single user of Zazzle named NOBAMAMAN (thanks go to the Active Art blog for discovering them). Bad taste isn’t against the law, but many of these designs are clearly beyond the pale – especially in an environment of heightened threats against the president.

Last month Zazzle banned a line of products which called on people to pray for Obama’s death. The company said the so-called Psalm 109 products “may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest physical harm to the President of the United States.” In light of this, we should be sure to call Zazzle’s attention to some of the above products. You can email Zazzle here, post in their forum, comment on their blog, or use Twitter.

UPDATE: Zazzle appears to have taken down the offerings.

[X-posted from Right Wing Watch]

It's been over a year since Americans elected Barack Obama, but we're still living in George Bush's world – two wars, a recession, a deficit, and so much more.

President Obama has his hands full cleaning up these messes and establishing a legacy on healthcare and climate change. I get that. But there's one blind spot that he can't afford to ignore any longer.

We're living under the rule of George Bush's judges. He picked over 40% of all current federal judges. We're talking about lifetime appointees, and so few cases ever make it to the Supreme Court that they usually get the last word.

Bush's judicial legacy didn't happen by accident, or overnight. He made it a priority. The numbers are telling: as Obama approaches the end of his first year, he’s picked roughly 30 nominees, 11 of whom have been confirmed. By the end of his first year, Bush had nominated 65, and nearly 30 had been confirmed.

To be sure, Republicans have been obstructing Obama's nominees at every turn – that's why so few have been confirmed. But Obama has played into their hands by not nominating more people, which would throw their obstruction into sharp relief and amp up pressure on the GOP.

I know it might not seem this way – in the midst of the healthcare fight – but Obama's legacy, the future of progressive legislation, and the well-being of our nation depend on the character, and quantity, of the judges he nominates. This issue deserves equal billing with the others at the very top of the administration's agenda.

The good news is that, unlike with many problems we face, Obama can ramp up nominations without sacrificing progress on his other priorities. There is no shortage of highly qualified – and progressive – nominees, and Senate Democrats can crush judicial filibusters when they set their mind to it.

The bottom line is that Obama may never have another opportunity like the present, with 60 Democrats in the Senate, to push through his nominees and return some balance to the judicial branch. And he has only four or so months before the 2010 election season causes the Senate to grind to a halt.

President Obama, your legacy clock is ticking. We need you to act now.

On Tuesday, Senate Democrats beat back Jeff Sessions’ filibuster of Obama’s first judicial nominee – Judge David Hamilton – by a reassuring margin of 70-29. Sessions lost ten of his fellow Republicans, including conservatives like Hatch, Cornyn, and Thune, and Hamilton will be confirmed Thursday afternoon to the Seventh Circuit.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the GOP is winning the battle for the federal courts.

Just a few short years ago, right-wing Senators denounced filibusters of President Bush’s nominees in the strongest possible language and threatened to employ the “nuclear option.” Sessions went even further – he claimed Democrats were violating the Constitution by blocking any Bush nominee (no matter how extreme). But some time after November 4, 2008, his interpretation of the Constitution must have changed dramatically.

Now a Democrat is in the White House, and – hypocrisy be damned! – Sessions is vehemently pro-filibuster and pro-obstruction. And the worst part is that he’s been successful. Judge Hamilton was nominated in March to general acclaim. He received the highest possible rating from the ABA, both his home-state Senators strongly endorsed him (including senior Senate Republican Dick Lugar), and even the head of the Indianapolis Federalist Society backed him. It doesn’t get much better than that.

But the nomination was dragged out for months by the GOP. As a result, Hamilton will become just the seventh Obama nominee to be confirmed to the federal bench. By contrast, nearly 30 such Bush nominees had been confirmed at the same point. We’re talking lifetime appointments to the highest courts in our land. President Obama obviously has his hands full, but he can’t afford to neglect this crucial aspect of his legacy.

But so far, Obama has been playing into the hands of the GOP obstructionists. He’s nominated fewer than half as many people as Bush had at this point. That has got to change, and quickly. The Obama administration has a window of just 4-5 months to return some semblance of balance to the federal bench before the mid-term elections. The choice is simple: act now to fill the judicial pipeline with highly qualified progressive nominees, or let Sessions and Bush win.