Remous et conséquences après la décision de la Cour Suprême

Remous et conséquences après la décision de la Cour Suprême

Bien qu’elle ait été éclipsée par les autres événements washingtoniens, la décision de la Cour Suprême du 21 janvier 2010 est un facteur nouveau important dans la vie politique US. On en reparlera.

Nous citons deux textes sur deux aspects différents de cette décision et de ses conséquences. Les deux textes sont de RAW Story.

• Le premier marque l’intervention du Représentant démocrate de Floride Alan Grayson (le 22 janvier 2010), qui s’est déjà signalé par une audition fameuse à la Chambre sur la “disparition” de $9.000 milliards faisant partie des gigantesques manipulations de l’administration après la crise 9/15. Nous signalions cette intervention le 26 juin 2009. Grayson part en guerre contre la décision de la Cour et annonce qu’il a déposé plusieurs projets de loi pour tourner cette décision.

«“If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye,” Grayson told Raw Story in an interview just hours after the decision was announced. “You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers.”

»Grayson said the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling – which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations – “opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law.” “It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process,” he said. “It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people.”

»Fearing this decision before it became official, Grayson last week filed five campaign finance bills and a sixth one on Thursday. Grayson said the bills are important to securing the people's “right to clean government.” The bills have names like the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act and the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act. The first slaps a 500 percent excise tax on corporate spending on elections, and the second mandates businesses to disclose their attempts to influence elections. […]

»“These bills will save us from drowning in corporate money and special interest money,” Grayson said. “They should have been passed a long time ago but after the Supreme Court opened those floodgates, I think it's imperative we get these things done.»»

• Le second texte, du 23 janvier 2010, soulève un aspect important de la décision de la Cour. En statuant pour un accès illimité de l’argent des corporates dans les campagnes électorales, la décision permet un accès à de l’argent et donc à une influence non-US du fait que nombre de grands groupes US sont détenus par des étrangers. Ainsi, une influence non-US, pour des intérêts politiques étrangers, pourrait se faire sentir. Effet pervers de la globalisation tant voulue par les USA…

«Key among them is a concern first raised by Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote in his dissent that the court, by removing all prohibitions against corporate or union money in U.S. elections, “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

»“I guess this would be the corporate globalization of the U.S. electoral system,” a blogger for watchdog group The Sunlight Foundation opined. In other words, The Sunlight Foundation noted, the Supreme Court “might support allowing foreign companies to spend freely in elections in the United States.”

»“A majority of large businesses are now owned by foreign entities, and this means international corporations could pour tons of money into the United States political scene, potentially swaying the political climate,” added Newsweek.

»The Center for Public Integrity specifically highlights foreign-owned corporations which operate U.S.-based subsidiaries. The group focused on CITGO Petroleum Company, purchased by Venezuela's state-run oil firm Petróleos de Venezuela in 1990. Through the association, Venezuelan socialist leader Hugo Chavez might conceivably “spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target.”

»“And it’s not just Chavez,” the Center continued. “The Saudi government owns Houston’s Saudi Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM’s PC assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government’s Chinese Academy of Sciences. And Singapore’s APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations. A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also have significant sway in American electioneering.”»

dedefensa.org