So Easy A Justice Can Do It

SCOTUS barely has its feet in the water of cyber technology.  Seriously.  It was the last of the U.S. Courts to implement electronic recordkeeping.  So you think these Justices would have any idea about electronic transparency?  NOT.  They still live in the stone age of communication.

You can read in Kennedy's opinion that he did not have a freakin' clue about networking or internet technology.  In the opinion the Justices refer to "magic words". (line 953)

K, dun roflmao.

'Magic words' are what we call metatags and backlinks and are used for SEO.  They sound like cavemen. (and cavewomen).

Then, they did not even have any stares decisis that would have given them any foundation to address the culture of technology because SCOTUS has an ancient system of hearing public issues.  Here is how it works:

You make it to the big show, the United States of America Supreme Court.  You file...in person, of course because SCOTUS still does not have Electronic Case Filing on PACER.

Then you have to make it through the rank and file of law clerks who will only pick public issues they feel are appropriate for the Justices to conference on.  All the research is done through the clerks because.

When the clerks are researching a case to make decisions on whether to allow it to go before the Justices, where do you think they go to see if it is a public issue?  THE INTERNET.

This is verifiable due to wonders of Google Analytics.  I busted SCOTUS a few times looking at my stuff.  I can actually track how long and what subject matter they want.  Now, someone please tell me the Justices actually are knowledgeable of this stuff.  If they were, they would not have come down with such a...I must put this in proper legalese...such an unsophisticated sagacious decision which gracefully demonstrates its undeveloped acumen for technology.

So, when the Justices come up with their fancy opinions, you know where it comes from.  The internet.

A corporation will shoot money to a fly-by-nite non-profit.  All you need is a post office box, a domain name, a quick website and pay someone who knows nothing to use their name on it.  File for your 501(c) 3 and you are in business and that non-profit.

Now you have money coming in and if you are really good, you snag a few state and federal grants.

Next, is getting the money to a candidate.  Create a Political Action Committee.

All a corporation needs to do is set up a few of these non-profits and then make contributions to the PACs.  A PAC has to support an issue and that issue has to do with 3 or more political candidates.  It's done.

There are much more sophisticated schemes but I think you have a basic understanding of this rubric.

Corporate campaign ads haven't followed Supreme Court's prediction

COMPANIES AND UNIONS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AVOID THE TRANSPARENCY CALLED FOR IN THE COURT'S LANDMARK RULING. SPENDING ON NEXT WEEK'S MIDTERM ELECTION HAS BEEN EXORBITANT

Chart: Money flowing into midterm campaigns

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court sent a wave of corporate and union money flooding into campaign ads this year, but it did so with the promise that the public would know — almost instantly — who was paying for them.

"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in January. "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

But Kennedy and the high court majority were wrong. Because of loopholes in tax laws and a weak enforcement policy at the Federal Election Commission, corporations and wealthy donors have been able to spend huge sums on campaign ads, confident the public will not know who they are, election law experts say.

Corporate donors have been able to hide their contributions despite the opposition of shareholders and customers — the very groups cited by Kennedy.

Here are the questions presented to the Justices:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 

1. Whether all as-applied challenges to the disclosure requirements (reporting and 

disclaimers) imposed on "electioneering communications" by the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA") were resolved by McConnell’s statement 

that it was upholding the disclosure requirements against facial challenge “for the 

entire range of electioneering communications' set forth in the statute." Mem. Op. I, 

App. 15a (quoting McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 196 (200)). 

    2. Whether BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden 

when applied to electioneering communications protected from prohibition by the 

appeal-to-vote test, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2667 (2007) 

("WRTL II”), because such communications are protected "political speech," not 

regulable “campaign speech,” id. at 2659, in that they are not "unambiguously 

related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate," Buckley v. Valeo, 424 

U.S. 1, 80 (1976), or because the disclosure requirements fail strict scrutiny when 

so applied. 

    3. Whether WRTL II’s appeal-to-vote test requires a clear plea for action to vote 

for or against a candidate, so that a communication lacking such a clear plea for 

action is not subject to the electioneering communication prohibition. 2 U.S.C. § 

441b. 

    4. Whether a broadcast feature-length documentary movie that is sold on DVD, 

shown in theaters, and accompanied by a compendium book is to be treated as the 

broadcast "ads" at issue in McConnell, 540 U.S. at 126, or whether the movie is not 

subject to regulation as an electioneering communication.

Here are the some keywords and links to make sure this message gets back to the Justices, of course, via the clerks:


Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Elena Kagan. Clarence Thomas,Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg