PACs, Super PACs do not represent the PEOPLE they represent the 1%; a vote for Republicans is a vote for Dictatorship USA

The evolving nature of campaign funding was particularly evident in January with Mitt Romney's campaign and its ally, the aggressive Super PAC known as Restore Our Future.

Financial reports filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission indicate that Romney's campaign spent $19 million in January -- nearly three times as much as it raised -- as the former Massachusetts governor defeated Newt Gingrich in New Hampshire, lost to him in South Carolina and then topped him in Florida.
Restore Our Future, meanwhile, raised $6.6 million and spent $13.5 million, mostly on ads attacking Gingrich that helped Romney win the Florida primary. By the end of January, Romney's campaign had $7.7 million on hand and the pro-Romney PAC had $16.3 million.

The campaigns of Gingrich and Rick Santorum stayed in the game by raising $5.6 million and $4.5 million, respectively. But in Gingrich's case, the PAC supporting him -- called Winning Our Future -- was at least as influential as his campaign.

The pro-Gingrich PAC attracted $10 million in donations from the family of Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, and funded attack ads on Romney that helped Gingrich, a former U.S. House of Representatives speaker, win South Carolina's primary.

US Supreme Court rules in favor of Bribery & Corruption ...Equal Justice Under Law ... unless your rich then we'll write the laws that favor you

The Montana Supreme Court, voting 5-2, said Citizens United didn’t apply to the state in part because of bribery and other types of corruption that infused politics there before the law was enacted in 1912.

At the time the law was enacted, “the state of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority, and the real social and political power was wielded by powerful corporate managers to further their own business interests,” the Montana court majority said.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, a Democrat, defended the law, saying it “has safeguarded the republican form of government in Montana for a century from the scourge of political corruption.”

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked a century-old Montana ban on corporate campaign spending, signaling the justices may reinforce a 2010 ruling that allowed companies to donate unlimited amounts to influence elections. 

The high court yesterday put the Montana law on hold until it announces whether it will review the measure, which is being challenged by two nonprofit corporations and a family-owned business.

The case would test the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision, which divided the court 5-4 along ideological lines, allowed corporate spending as long as companies don’t directly coordinate with candidates.

WE THE PEOPLE condemn the US Supreme Court's disastrous ruling in Citizens United v FEC

Resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment have been passed in New York City, Oakland, California and Duluth, Minnesota. The California State Legislature introduced a similar resolution that, if passed, would call for an amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. And the Supreme Court of Montana issued a stinging opinion upholding a state ban on corporate contributions and criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous ruling.


People from coast to coast — and more than 40 national and statewide organizations including Greenpeace, 350.org, People For the American Way, Move to Amend, California Church IMPACT, and others — will take action demanding a constitutional amendment to end corporate dominance over elections and restore our democracy to We the People.


Regardless of what form your action takes, you’ll be part of a movement that has been gaining momentum at a remarkable pace, from the grassroots to Congress.


Now it’s time to step out into the national spotlight and make it clear that the American people strongly and overwhelmingly oppose the auctioning of our democracy.

Montana Supreme Court finds US Supreme Court ruling on Citzens United v FEC FLAWED!!!!

Last week, the Montana Supreme Court agreed, finding that corporate spending in fact had corrupted elections in the resource-rich and sparsely populated state. Should the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately accept Montana's reasoning—which many observers find doubtful—it could open the door to additional campaign-finance regulation if justified by specific facts.



Soon after Montana's admission to the Union in 1889, the big copper companies and other out-of-state mining interests flooded Montana with political spending, and sometimes outright bribery, to seize control of its courts and statehouse, the opinion said. "This naked corporate manipulation of the very government…of the State ultimately resulted in populist reforms that are still part of Montana law," state Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority. "The question then, is when in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did."



By a vote of 5-2, the court held that those interests remained valid. The state's sparse population and reliance on farming and natural resources "make Montana especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government," Chief Justice McGrath wrote.



The court found corporate interests in political advocacy were addressed by state law allowing creation of political committees, which collect voluntary contributions from shareholders.



Mr. Bullock, a Democrat who is running for governor, praised the ruling as "based on solid constitutional analysis, common sense and a clear understanding of...Montana's history."



The Montana law was challenged by conservative activists led by American Tradition Partnership, a group based in Virginia that collects funds for political advertisements from mining and other corporate interests. Executive director Donald Ferguson said the group was considering its options, which would likely include an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.