Unwinding Neville Witkoff. Donald Trump’s buddy, real estate guy Steve Witkoff, foolishly was put in charge of negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war. Predictably, he got rolled by Putin. He gave the Russian dictator most everything he wanted, chunks of Ukraine territory, forcing Kiev to reduce its military capability and banning any NATO membership.
It may have been the worst appeasement since Neville Chamberlain caved into Hitler at Munich 87 years ago. We know what that produced. Let’s remember, Russia invaded a sovereign country. It certainly should not be rewarded. Now Secretary of State Marco Rubio is rushing in to try to fix the deal. That’s better than Witkoff, but it doesn’t give me a great deal of confidence.
‘A’ Rubio cares more, I think, about Venezuela than Ukraine. It’s easier to go after Maduro than Putin. ‘B’ he has a history of folding when the going gets tough. And ‘C’ Trump just wants a deal and he actually kind of likes Putin. You know, when you appease a bully politically at home or on the global stage, it always emboldens the bully to come back for more.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17teiev5b4/
Harvard Law review article on the Montana Plan
Above is a link from Facebook and the equally respected competing Harvard Law Review which are describing the Montana Plan to neuter the US Supreme Cort anti democracy decision in the Citizens United case which declared corporations as people with free speech rights (money is speech). This gave corportaions the right to donate money to political campaigns. Rather than relitigating or amending the US constituiton the Montana Plan realizes that every corporation is granted life by the states which charter them. Each state thus has the authority to stipulate which activities it will allow the corporations to engage in within its borders whether the corporation is domiciled in that state or conducting business in that state. Thus, Montana can deny the right of corporations to engage in political activity by any Montana corporation or out of state corporation engaged in business in Montana. Also known as states rights DUH.
One of the first posts I made on Substack was on Citizens United:
Citizens United is a conservative (aka corporate) nonprofit organization in the United States founded in 1988. It was primarily financed by the Koch Brothers, the royal family of Corporate Communism. They rule by belief in capitalism for the poor (pull yourself up by the bootstraps) and communism for the rich (‘too big to fail’ aka corporate bail out.)
In 2010, the organization won a U.S. Supreme Court case known as Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down as unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections. Maybe I missed it, but where in the constitution are corporations or any organization mentioned?
The Preamble to the Constitution is clear:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It does not say “we the organizations.” Why? Because organizations are amorphous and fungible without a body to be kicked or a soul to be damned.
JW: What is the actual political impact on elections?
BB: Do you remember Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party? Did it ever seem to be that they were opposite sides of the same coin? The coin of “fed up.” They had vastly different solutions to complaints that were eerily similar. The Occupy people were yelling about corrupt capitalism and Tea Party types about creeping socialism. Tragically neither side had any contemporary solutions. In other words, they were fighting the dogma wars of the last century. Both sides were unaware of the corporate communist privatization of Big Brother. Therefore, because the advertising media knows that conflict and hatred sell ads, they portrayed these victims of corporate communist manipulation as life enemies sort of like MAGA v Black Lives Matter.
BB: What is absurdly tragic about Citizens United decision and its aftermath is that it has united the citizens of the left aka Libtards (ACLU) and the right Conservavictims (Koch Brothers) in a full-frontal nudity assault on democracy. Both demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of free speech. Having the right to say something isn't dependent on anyone to propagate it e.g., Elon Musk claims to be a free speech absolutist so he is not going to censure any speech on Twitter unless it is anti-Musk. (The reality is that policing content costs money which he can no longer afford because he screwed up Twitter cash flow and continues to not be the richest person in the world, based on cash).
JW: What is the net result?
BB: Yes, this Supreme Court decision is obscene and moronic, dare I say Trumpist. Please note that these Corporate Communist fraudsters exempted organizations but not “people” from the death penalty. Also, has anybody seen a list of the citizens in Citizens United i.e., non-corporate?
The ruling enabled corporations and other outside groups, without a body to be kicked or a soul to be damned, to spend unlimited funds on elections, further tilting political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations. The decision has dramatically expanded the already outsized political influence of America’s dominant caste: wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups, ushering in massive increases in political spending from outside groups. The decision has had negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption.
It has resulted in a significant increase in negative advertising, as well as a shift in focus from grassroots organizing to corporate fundraising. Corporations run on money thus throwing money at politics fits into corporate style management aka BFFI (Brut Force and Fucking Ignorance). The non corporate citizen doesn’t stand a chance in influencing elections. The corporate advertising media puts up ad magnets like Trump. He scares the crap out of progressives so they stay tuned to MSNBC and energizes MAGAnarchists so they stay tuned to FOX. A Win, win for ad revenue and major loss for the people.
JW: What else?
BB: Additionally, the decision has also led to the creation of super PACs, which allow wealthy donors to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. A PAC is a political committee that raises and spends money to elect or defeat candidates. Most PACs represent businesses, such as the Microsoft PAC; labor unions, such as the Teamsters PAC; or ideological interests, such as the EMILY's List PAC or the National Rifle Association PAC. An organization's PAC will solicit money from the group's employees or members and make contributions in the name of the PAC to candidates and political parties. Individuals contributing to a PAC may also contribute directly to candidates and political parties, even those also supported by the PAC.
The subsequent rise of super PACs has further tilted the balance of power in favor of wealthy donors and corporations. Super PACs are a new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in a case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.
Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. HA. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis — the super PAC's choice — in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.
As of January 03, 2024, 1,799 groups organized as super PACs have reported total receipts of $421,467,481 and total independent expenditures of $154,133,354 in the 2023-2024 cycle.
Citizens United Financial Impact: Source info@opensecrets.org
These decisions have also led to the expansion of dark money, which refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations that do not have to disclose their donors. This has made it more difficult for voters to know who is funding political campaigns and has further eroded transparency in the political process.
JW: What is the impact on voting citizens?
BB: Non corporate citizens are united in their contempt of corporate ownership of our democracy, or they would be if the corporate communist owned advertising media covered it. They don’t so the average citizen has no awareness of this. The amount of political baloney covered by the corporate media (Where Politics Lives) has saturated the population to the point of surrender to indifference. Do the names George Santos and Hunter Biden sound familiar? Why are we getting 24 hr. coverage on them instead of boring investigative reports of the money donated by corporations and tax-free religions to all PACS. That coupled with the lie that both sides are equally dishonest and corrupt has led to a situation where a depraved, incompetent, immoral entertainer was elected as President because he sells advertising.
Joewightman.substack.com
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.