Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court has a secret in her past that has just been outed to the general public by David D. Kirkpatrick at the New York Times in "A Long Record on Campaign Finance, Often in Support of Regulation ".
Could this really be the reason Republicans find her a threat, because their corporate masters do?
According to the report the court flipped on strict enforcement of when Justice Sandra Day OConnor retired to be replaced with Samuel Alito. While Sotomayor replacing Souter will not flip the court again since he was for strong enforcement, it's still a strong voice for it.
I remember hearing an audio clip from the time that the bailout was first being crafted in which a Congressman (I do not know who) railed to his colleagues the the collapse of the Wall Street banks would mean even the end of politics "as we know it" (paraphrased because of memory). Well, you know what that was about, politics where big corporations manage to file huge donations to candidates and (understood) the Congress pays them back in session (though in a manner that is not a visible quid quo pro).
It's long been visible that the party which courts such donations most heartily is the Republican party, but many Democrats play the game too though they are not likely to oppose the president's decision for Supreme Court Justice and neither will the Republicans in Congress according to informed sources.
As usual though individuals and groups of Republican persuasion have made a great show of railing against the 2nd circuit court judge, though this time they most likely will not act on their claims of reverse racism, menstruation, and immigrant background that they claim so offends them.
They're just saying to big donors "Hey, look at me!" as even so called 'balanced' news sources have said, though many do not admit how deeply our political system is corrupted by big money. I often see the Republican party prostitute itself for big money and business about 6 months before an election. It seems like an incredibly bad idea, unless you realize that the mind of the Republican on the street is not likely to remember such news, if indeed they even hear it, while they will be immersed in expensive TV ads, while being told to go vote Republican in their church communities during the time of the election.
Also though you can see the same tendency to acting for future campaign donations among the Democrats crafting the so called Health Care Initiatives in Congress.
And if given a chance Sotomayor could be part of a team that tamps down corporate influence over our government.
The Horror!
She believes in strict campaign finance control.
I remember an audio snip of some Congressman talking, I suppose to Congress, saying the meltdown of the Wall Street banks would threaten even our chosen way of doing politics.
Yeah, you know, where mega businesses like Goldman-Sachs drop millions into political coffers, and politicians eagerly run for office never quite pledging to do their bidding, but managing to do a lot of it anyway.
Maybe all that legal corruption is what is behind officials that get caught.
And Sonia Sotomayor wants controls on the huge donations both direct and obscure.
I was not a fan of the 2002 CFR bill, as it didn't go far enough, and it turns out that the McCain Feingold bill had a big loophole in it that would allow candidates to collect up to $30k from each supporter. And the funny thing is that this wasn't discovered and used until John McCain decided to run for president (according to news reports) last year. Did you get the name of the bill controlling campaign finance from above? Mc-Cain--Feingold. Could it be that John McCain pulled the wool over his colleagues? Luckily the Obama team was smart enough to see what was happening and mimic the action.
We need real campaign finance reform. But until then Sonia Sotomayor may be the best chance we have.