Write two letters today

. . . to register your condemnation of the McCutcheon decision . . . and the corrupt Supreme Court that handed down this odious gift to the most powerful among us.

1) WRITE TO THE US SUPREME COURT

Sound off to the Supreme Court, which has become the servant of the rich and powerful.  Be courteous, but direct. Here is a sample letter our CvD Committee Member Jim Allison sent. Send one to each Justice individually, or at least the ones who voted for this horrendous extension of influence for the wealthy . . .

Justice Scalia
The Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Justice Scalia:
For such a distinguished jurist, you have joined more than your share of majority opinions inimical to the common good of your fellow Americans and the reputation of the Court.  The paramount examples came in 2000 (Bush v. Gore), 2010 (Citizens United), and 2014 (McCutcheon).

A friend tells me that any disapproval of your opinions is anti-Catholic.  Of course my friend is wrong.  I am not anti-Catholic, and I have proof positive:  Concerning the composition of the Supreme Court of the United States, I would gladly trade you for the Pope.  Anti-Catholic? Ridiculous!

Sincerely,

James Allison
Professor Emeritus, Psychology, Indiana University
1127 E. First St.
Bloomington, IN 47401-5077

2) NOW WRITE TO YOUR EDITOR, encouraging the public to write to SCOTUS too

Here’s Jim’s sample letter to emulate:

Nearly every day I get dozens of urgent e-mail requests that I communicate with my President, Congress, Governor, State Legislature, candidate, regulatory agency, city or county government, newspaper, radio or TV network about issue after issue of vital social or biological importance. 

Question: Why has no one asked that I get in touch with my Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)? Not even in 2000 (Bush v. Gore), 2010 (Citizens United), or 2014 (McCutcheon). 

SCOTUS is not unreachable. It has a US mail address:

Supreme Court of the United States

1 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20543

It has a telephone number: 202-479-3000. It has an electronic contact at www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contactus.aspx. 

Why not get in touch after all these years?

After all, who gives the Justices their salaries, their robes, their law clerks? Who gives them their office help, their private dining room, their basketball court, their janitorial services? Why not let them know what we think of their work? Don't be a stranger.

THE  BACKGROUND:  

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission was a landmark campaign finance case before the United States Supreme Court challenging Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which imposed a biennial aggregate limit on individual contributions to national party and federal candidate committees. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 8, 2013, being brought on appeal after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge. It was decided on April 2, 2014, by a 5–4 vote, reversing the prior decision. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito invalidated aggregate contribution limits as violating the First Amendment. Justice Thomas provided the necessary fifth vote, but concurred separately in the judgment while arguing that all contribution limits are unconstitutional. For more information, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._Federal_Election_Commission

This case directly affects a very narrow group of Americans, the 1%-5% who can afford to donate more than $124,000 to political candidates.  

Now they will be able to do so without financial aggregate parameters.  

So billionaires like Sean McCutcheon can contribute more than $124,000 by spreading their money around to many more candidates and races.   

But the indirect affect of this case affects us all. 

This decision will cause more and more influence to be concentrated among the wealthiest citizens, and will largely serve to silence those of us who can not pay large amounts to back the candidates that promise to serve our personal and business interests. 

Representation will be further limited to the wealthiest segment of our population, who already call most of the shots through their business lobbying and political contributions.  

WHAT YOU NEED TO POINT OUT: 

Specious  Arguments  Made In Defense Of This Decision

Arguments made by corporatists at the time of the decision centered on the fact that campaign finance reform laws were not in place before the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act was passed, and ‘there was no evidence of undue influence of the wealthy on elections then.'   

What they have NOT taken into consideration is that prior to the 1980s, the distribution of wealth in America was much more diverse and more ordinary Americans could afford to contribute, evening the playing field a bit.  Since then, wealth has been compressed among a smaller and smaller number of Americans whose influence is growing and largely silencing the rest of us.  Democracy can not endure amid this kind of inequality.  We are becoming an oligarchy!  

For more information about the wealth gap in America:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/the-wealth-gap-is-growing-too/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0