What a terrible , wonderful review on politics in America.

And what an evil plan it is .

The filibuster, the Supreme Courts ‘ Citizens’ United’ both tools of the far right to keep the majority of Americans down and poor.

Theres a guarantee attached to these tools of oppression:

The rich will get richer .

And the poor will get poorer. Any anyone whose not morbidly rich will definitely be poor.

Theres no middle ground here. It is ‘all for them and none for us’.

These diabolic creators of this plan, don’t worry about quality of life for anyone but themselves.

Their children will go to the schools they’ve built.

The roads and bridges will look like the ruins that there are.

A republican ruination of

our country and our lives.

Expand full comment

At some point (Buckley? Bellotti? Bush v. Gore? HAVA?), someone said "Draw!" and they got the drop on us. The rest was as night follows day.

Expand full comment

Article 3, Section 2, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution, with caps for focus:

THE JUDICIAL POWER SHALL EXTEND TO ALL CASES, IN LAW AND EQUITY, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. IN ALL THE OTHER CASES BEFORE MENTIONED, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION, BOTH AS TO LAW AND FACT, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE.

I read recently (forgot where) that this was pointed out to President Nixon by John Roberts, before he was appointed to the Supreme Court, as a way that the purview of the Supreme Court could be curtailed. I'm not aware of Congress ever taking advantage of this clause. (Has it?)

If Congress was so minded, could they create a law stating that:

1. Money is not speech;

2. Corporations are not legal persons, and consequently have no "personal" rights;

3. Being "implicit" rather than "explicit" shall not preclude a quid pro quo arrangement between a legislator or regulator and a citizen bearing gifts (such as a campaign contribution) from being considered bribery, so that both parties may be subject to criminal prosecution.

4. Laws previously passed to reform the electoral process that were weakened by Citizens United, Buckley, and other Supreme Court decisions are hereby restored to their original effect.

and 5. Pursuant to Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court is instructed that this law has been created outside of Supreme Court jurisdiction. (?)

Of course, we still need to overthrow the filibuster before we could even try this, and two Senators, Sinema and Manchin stand in the way.

Expand full comment

That was King George the third, against whom we declared independence/war in 1776. Thanks for the note: if you missed that, probably a lot of others did, too, so I’ll update the article right now.

Expand full comment

Very good post today.

Just wanted to note one piece that nyt ran in 2015, and maybe thom saw that when researching this.

Although NYT usually provides little insight on iissues of oligarchy and corrupt financial influence, They did run an important piece in October 2015 about the families that had already contributed over $1 million to the the then- upcoming 2016 presidential campaign.

Similar to the recent report cited here which lists 27 billionaires that piece in 2015 stated that about 26 billionaire families had already contributed over 1 million each for the 2016 race by oct 2015.

The research they compiled showed that 23 of the 26 families supported republicans. Also it showed that more recently-obtained wealth was involved than before - that there was a new class of young billionaires primarily from hedge fund and fracking industries, who are very politically active and (as wee see today) spending more snd more to pursue their domination of politics.

Again, great post today, thanks.

Expand full comment

Addendum to my previous comment:

I finished by saying “Of course, we still need to overthrow the filibuster before we could even try this, and two Senators, Sinema and Manchin, stand in the way.”

A more positive way of looking at this is that, if it is to be attempted at all, then the first step must be to convince Manchin and Sinema that this is the necessary exception to their principle of supporting the filibuster. Getting the poison of money out of American politics may be thought of as “meta-political”: Are we to be a government of the people—both conservative and progressive—or are we to be a government of monied interest?

Without Manchin and Sinema’s votes to suspend the filibuster for this unique emergency, there is no point of going further. They must be involved from the start: Let it be called the Manchin-Sinema Bill if that would be useful. If their assent is accomplished, then it is a matter of time: can the legislative process be completed, in the face of Republican delaying tactics, in the remaining weeks of the lame-duck session?

Are the Democratic legislators in Congress doing anything, as the clock runs out? If this conversation (that Mr. Hartmann began) is not to be futile chattering, then someone, Mr. Hartmann, who has communications with some of these individuals needs to communicate and point to the clock.

Expand full comment

As a fellow opinion writer, I've developed a keen sense for the scent of futility. All you recount here is as true as it is ugly and your call to action necessary and noble. But I think we both know well enough not to place a nickel bet on the Congress coming to the rescue, certainly not in the next two months. And I'm not holding my breath for "The People" either. I don't know about you, Thom, but I find the serial task of calling for things that I know will not come embittering and exhausting.

Expand full comment

Whatever the Democratic lame-duck congress can accomplish before the window slams shut, no matter how big or small, will be the last legislation in the interests of American workers and their families (Everybody!) for at least another two, gridlocked years as the U.S. House sinks into chaos.

And as always, the holiday cheer will too soon wear off as everyone slogs back to work to pay the bills. Thanks, Republican voters, for once again making everything worse than it already was.

Good job! -- stupid bleeping white people who think they're better than everyone else on the planet ..."because God says so. Argue with that, heathens!"

Exhausted pundits and politicos will once again flood the zone with useless metaphors trying to kick-start a mesmerized audience numb to it all. Kevin McCarthy is Captain Ahab lashed to a white whale smashing their pathetic little ship to pieces, blabbity blah.

The only titular head of the Republican Party left standing after the bloodbath at the polls is tied inextricably to their real leader, a criminal-minded loser larger than life, running from the law by running for president, a parasite consuming its host.

Godspeed, Kevin.

Expand full comment

Mighty Duck session instead of lame duck?

BTW, after defeating the Fair Tax, Griffin backed a straw man in GOP governor primary race who lost. Griffin then announced he was moving his company to Florida.

We are stuck with a regressive flat tax as a result. I hope he buys beachfront property.

Expand full comment

Thom, what's the 'script' for corrupting a Supreme Court justice? How elected politicians can be corrupted by money is more intuitive, as it helps keep them in office. How are justices found, recruited and corrupted? From what I can glean from their deliberations and rulings, it almost seems to be that they have undergone some sort of long-term indoctrination process. Those running the show behind the curtains must be looking for certain mindsets and inclinations as a prerequisite to recruitment. Have you looked at this in any of your books?

Expand full comment

Who was the major shareholder in the East India Company in 1601?

The East India Company became via Royal Charter, also the Bank of England, and the Bank of England was chartered by Charles II

The East India company and Bank of England were in essence two houses under one roof with, shall we say interlocking boards of directors (shareholders).

From my own research I know that Charles II was a man of many vices

Gambling and mistresses, both of which” bankrupted” him before there was the term bankrupt)

Deeply in debt he went begging to the East India Company for a loan. They advanced him the loan on the condition that he gave them the royal charter as the Bank of England.

He squandered that loan and came begging back, this time they demanded collateral, and the collateral was the crown jewels, including the orb and scepter, which are the symbols of sovereignty. (Who ever owns them is sovereign). They are still held in the financial district of London, the jewels

As of 1984 when I did research on my paper, the Queen (King) when visiting the Financial District, had to make an appointment, show up in street clothing and was met by the Lord Mayor bedecked in ermine and royal garb.

Almost immediately after the bank started taking deposits, a rumor started that the bank did not have enough gold to honor cover it’s deposits,

In response the bank hired as Warden of the Mint, the reknown alchemist Isaac Newton, not yet knighted.

From a footnote (Repetitious but quoted in full)

Charles Townshend, Chancellor of the Exchequer (England) whose policies of money and taxation led to the American Revolution hired Adam Smith to tutor his stepson, Henry the young 3rd Duke of Buccleuch, because of his work "The Theory of Moral Sentiment 81. Smith penned "The Wealth of Nations" at a time when the mercantilist policies of England had proven antiquated and were no longer profitable. The Sovereign of England by this time was the Bank of England for whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer was employed. Sovereignty having passed during the reign of Charles II,who bankrupted himself to bestow favors on an unscrupulous Barbara Villiers, first to the Bullioneers and the India Company and subsequently to the Bank of England when it acquired that company 82. Charles also sired, illegitimately, James Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch whose grandson was the above mentioned 3rd Duke. Smith wandered the continent, especially France, spending much time with the "physiocrats" with young Henry in tow. Henry, 13 years later, paid his friend and tutor to write "Wealth of Nations" thus intellectually justifying a new era and a new philosophy to justify the change in methodology.

A little gossipy, but Barbara Villiers was Charles II favorite paramout, to her he gifted the cattle Nonsuch,which Henry VIII built for Katherine Howard. Barabara sold it off, stone by stone. Barbara was cousin to Sir George Villier, a favorite of Jems I.

Expand full comment