Every American should be familiar with "Case # 435 U.S. 765."

Every history book in America should be required to cover this SCOTUS decision and the effect it has had on our Democracy.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/rehnquist_dissent_bellotti.php

"Justice Rehnquist's Dissent in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
States should be permitted to limit corporate political "speech"

Case Argued November 9, 1977
Decided April 26, 1978

Case # 435 U.S. 765
Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, and Stevens, joined. Justice Burger also filed a concurring opinion. Justice White filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan and Marshall joined. Justice Rehnquist filed a separate dissenting opinion.
Passages in red text are some we consider to be of particular interest.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting.

...

The question presented today, whether business corporations have a constitutionally protected liberty to engage in political activities, has never been squarely addressed by any previous decision of this Court. 1 However, the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Congress of the United States, and the legislatures of 30 other States of this Republic have considered the matter, and have concluded that restrictions upon the political activity of business corporations are both politically desirable and constitutionally permissible. ~~~~~~~~~~>The judgment of such a broad consensus of governmental bodies expressed over a period of many decades is entitled to considerable deference from this Court.<~~~~~~~~~~ I think it quite probable that their judgment may properly be reconciled with our controlling precedents, but I am certain that under my views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States, which I share with the two immediately preceding occupants of my seat on the Court, but not with my present colleagues, the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts should be affirmed.

...

It cannot be so readily concluded that the right of political expression is equally necessary to carry out the functions of a corporation organized for commercial purposes. 5 A State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. ~~~~~~~~~~>It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.

Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist.<~~~~~~~~~~ So long as the Judicial Branches of the State and Federal Governments remain open to protect the corporation's interest in its property, it has no need, though it may have the desire, to petition the political branches for similar protection. Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed. 6 ~~~~~~~~~~>I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to like regulation,<~~~~~~~~~~ whether the organization is a labor union, a partnership, a trade association, or a corporation.

..."

Please take the time to read through this dissenting opinion by then Associate Justice Rehnquist. You should spread the word as well. IMO, it is imperative that every American know about this SCOTUS decision, Justice Rehnquist's dissenting opinion, and what has gone wrong with our Democracy as a result of this mistake by the SCOTUS.

To be sure, this is a lesson on American history that even the simple-minded can come to understand, and, therefore, should.

Let us never, ever make this mistake again.

Additionally, please take notice of the "Powell Manifesto:"

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html

It was Justice Powell, after all, that authored the majority opinion in the above case.

**************************************************************************

While the Republican Revolution was underwritten by corporate wealth and investments, the foundation for this revolution was laid by President Richard Nixon, who in 1971 nominated corporate attorney Lewis I. Powell* to the SCOTUS.

Remarkably, the Congress did not object to this nomination despite the existence of "Powell Manifesto," which clearly demonstrated that this corporate attorney was of the philosophy that corporate legal and political powers needed to be expanded, which we now know required that personal legal and political powers needed to be reduced in clear contradiction to the U.S. Constitution.

*notice that Lewis I. can be inverted to I. Lewis as in Libby.

How symbolic is "Scooter?"

More importantly, who ordered him to be chosen?

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party, I believe, were initially manipulated by corporate money and then taken over by candidates underwritten by corporate profits resulting from that initial investment.

In short, it is just a case of "other peoples money!"

The questions are:

1). Can the American People reclaim their government, restore their Constitution, and preserve their Democracy?

2). Can they do it without first ensuring the integrity of the vote?

I am nominating!

The question before the courts now is did b*** commit treason? I can safely say that IF this goes to the SCOTUS the there are 3 and about to be 4 votes that will say no.