Posts Tagged ‘Citizens United’

Weep For The Wealthy (Limerick)

Monday, April 7th, 2014

Weep For The Wealthy (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Though the wealthy will publicly cheer
As campaign regs get knocked on their rear,
Some privately groan:
“No limits?” they moan.
“Buying pols is becoming too dear!”

Note from Mad Kane: Although I concocted that quote, it may be closer to the truth than you think. Here’s The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, who argued on ABC’s This Week “that not every wealthy donor will embrace the outcome of the McCutcheon case, because they may now be obliged to give more:”

“All the donors I know hate this decision, of course,” he said. “This used to be a very good excuse to say to a candidate, ooh, I’m maxing out, I just can’t help your campaign.”

Free Speech Gets Pricey (Limerick)

Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

Free Speech Gets Pricey (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Remember “one person, one vote?”
Now “one dollar, one vote’s” what they wrote;
Yes, the U.S. Supremes
Favor money — in reams,
As the rich grab free speech by the throat.

Thanks to the New Yorker’s John Cassidy, for inspiring this limerick with his acerbic comment about McCutcheon v. FEC:

But Wednesday’s decision, once again a five-to-four ruling, represented another significant step away from the antiquated principle of “one person, one vote” toward the more modern, and utilitarian, notion of “one dollar, one vote.”

Supreme Priorities (Limerick)

Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014

If you thought the Citizens United ruling undermined democracy, brace yourself: The Roberts court has made things even worse with yet another controversial 5-4 decision in McCutcheon v. FEC. Assaulting campaign finance reform once again, the Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limits on how much an individual can contribute to candidates, parties and political action committees.

As Ari Berman astutely observes:

The Court’s conservative majority believes that the First Amendment gives wealthy donors and powerful corporations the carte blanche right to buy an election but that the Fifteenth Amendment does not give Americans the right to vote free of racial discrimination.

Supreme Priorities
By Madeleine Begun Kane

The Supremes freed the wealthy to buy
Politicians — an endless supply.
Seems “free speech” means “free spending,”
While “voting rights rending”
Isn’t something they care to decry.

A Driving Attack On Corporate Personhood (Limerick)

Tuesday, January 8th, 2013

I can’t help admiring the audacity and creativity of this fellow’s Citizens United-inspired legal argument:

A driver in San Rafael, California is attempting to appeal a traffic citation for driving alone in a High Occupancy Vehicle lane. Jonathan Frieman and his attorney, Ford Greene, argue that since Frieman had corporate incorporation papers in his car when he was stopped by an officer, he was actually carpooling at the time…

He’s sworn to chase the case all the way to the Supreme Court should the first trial not go his way in an attempt to “expose the impracticality of corporate personhood.”

A Driving Attack On Corporate Personhood (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane

I’m not driving alone, said the guy
In the HOV lane, and here’s why:
Corp’rate personhood rules,
And my corp files, you fools,
Are right here. My defense — you must buy!

Limerick Ode To Clarence Thomas

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is under scrutiny these days for conflicts of interest related to the Koch Brothers, the Federalist Society, and the Citizens United case.

But today’s limerick and haiku will focus, instead, on the fact that Thomas hasn’t asked a single appellate hearing question in five years.

For the record, I did quite a bit of litigation work during my lawyering years. And believe me, his failure to speak throughout five years of hearings is peculiar and reflects very poorly on his judicial skills.

That brings me to my Clarence Thomas limerick:

Limerick Ode To Clarence Thomas
By Madeleine Begun Kane

I’m mindful that Thomas can talk,
But at queries for hearings he’ll balk.
He’s been silent for years–
Five in all. I’m all ears.
If he asks one sharp question, I’ll gawk.

And here’s my Clarence Thomas haiku:

The Sup Court’s Thomas–
Too ill-informed for queries?
Or just too lazy?

UPDATE: It’s been nearly two years since I wrote this limerick and haiku. So in fairness, I must announce that Justice Thomas has finally broken his silence.

Now mind you, he didn’t ask a sharp question … or, indeed, any question: He merely made a mildly amusing four-word (or so) remark about lawyers who went to Yale.

Still … it’s a start.

Ode To Odious Corporate Personhood

Monday, January 25th, 2010

There’s nothing funny about the U.S. Supreme Court’s activist ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Overruling long-held precedents, it gives corporations free rein to buy political influence, all in the name of “corporate personhood” and “free speech.”

Nor is there anything funny about the hypocrisy of self-described anti-judicial-activism Republicans who laud this calamitous decision.

And, alas, there’s nothing funny about this limerick:

Democracy’s Demise?
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Justice Roberts and co are unbound,
Driving precedents precious aground.
Yet Republicans cheer,
And the sobs that we hear
Are the sounds of democracy drowned.

     

********

Lance Mannion managed to extract some humor from this judicial travesty.