Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recently complained about President Obama's State of the Union speech criticism of the court's Citizens United ruling. Now, the head of the League of Women Voters (LWV) has a message for Justice Roberts: "a little honest feedback can be a good thing."

In this letter to the editor of the Washington Post, LWV President Mary G. Wilson writes:

It is particularly important in this instance, since the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission clearly revealed that the majority on the court has an astonishingly naive view of how corruption works in our nation's capital. Everyone else in the room understood that allowing huge sums of unregulated cash into our elections will undermine the role of individual voters and further expose our elected officials to the siren calls of corporate lobbyists.

Buck up, Mr. Chief Justice. Occasionally there are some things you really need to hear.

Click here to see what CREW had to say about the Citizens United decision.

We have all heard of intimate relationships between lobbyists and public servants before. But buying a house together?

As the New York Times recently reported, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) paid off the multi-million dollar mortgage on its town-house headquarters with generous contributions from major corporations, including the taxpayer-owned General Motors and Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company.

The CBC avoided what’s left of the rules regulating corporate political contributions by funneling the money through a shadowy network of non-profits. These tax-shelters claim to provide scholarships to needy children, but have spent the bulk of their money on social events for politicos, including gala dinners with expensive catering tabs, plush golf-outings, and an annual gambling retreat.

As CREW followers know, this is only the tip of the iceberg.

The CBC’s behavior is notable only for its excess. Just last month, CREW filed ethics and IRS complaints against Rep. Steve Buyer (R-ID) for using a non-profit to skirt the tax-code and hobnob with corporate interests. (Days later, Rep. Buyer announced he would not seek reelection. CREW is awaiting a response to its complaints.)

The tactic is hardly confined to members of Congress. As the Los Angeles Times has reported, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) makes extensive use of corporate-funded non-profits to cover his international private-jet trips, pay for his luxury hotel accommodations, and even compensate his office staff. Meanwhile, right here in Washington, D.C., Doug Coe and his mysterious "Fellowship" used non-profit designation to dodge years of taxes on their infamous C Street house, their "Family" refuge for ethically-suspect Republican officials with fidelity issues.

We’ve long admired the CBC’s record of fighting for civil rights and the rule of just law. It’s a pity its current behavior isn’t living up to its storied past.

According to TPMMuckraker's Zachary Roth:

In the wake of last month's Citizens United ruling, a powerhouse Washington lobbying firm is informing its corporate clients on how they can use middlemen like the Chamber of Commerce to pour unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns, while maintaining "sufficient cover" to avoid "public scrutiny" and negative media coverage.

Lawyers for the firm K&L Gates posted this Q&A primer on the firm's website. In one section, K&L Gates suggests that corporations might "form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates" because "this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny."

The Q&A primer also suggests that corporations "could further lower their profile" by using independent expenditures that could "take the form of advertisements in 'under-the radar' sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks."

It's safe to assume a lot of corporate officials are reading these kinds of legal advisories so they can push their agenda in the post-Citizens United world in ways that are virtually invisible to ordinary Americans.

We've written several posts about the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision on campaign finance -- and for good reason. As this Washington Post editorial reminds us, the ruling's impact will be huge:

The most dangerous aspect of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is that it would let corporations spend money anonymously, by funneling donations through trade associations or other groups that do not have to disclose their donors.

This gap in reporting requirements existed before the Supreme Court ruling. But the decision made the loophole more problematic by allowing corporations to spend directly on political campaigns, and not only through so-called issue ads that stop short of endorsing or opposing particular candidates.

The Post noted that a proposal has been developed to partially address this concern by significantly raising disclosure requirements by corporate funders of such ads or campaigns.

Click here to read the concerns CREW has raised about this Supreme Court ruling.

It’s hard to be surprised about anything that is done by Richard Berman, the over-the-top P.R. maven who has attacked the minimum wage, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and various consumer health campaigns. But Americans who care about transparency and economic fairness should be concerned about the innocent-looking, national advertising blitz that one of Berman’s industry-funded front groups is carrying out.

It's unknown how much money is behind the "Defeat the Debt" ad campaign by Berman's Employment Policies Institute (EPI). But the campaign must have very deep pockets because it recently bought a premium-priced, 30-second TV slot during the Super Bowl. The Saints won that game, but there is nothing saintly about Berman's agenda. In fact, CBS's "60 Minutes" reported that Berman takes pride in being nicknamed "Dr. Evil." (Find more about him at CREW's BermanExposed website.)

EPI's 30-second ad aims to raise public fears that America’s growing national debt will mean "higher taxes" and "lower pay." The "lower pay" fear is an odd one for EPI to raise, considering that it has criticized proposals to raise the minimum wage. Berman's EPI wants to make sure Americans know which country (China) holds a disproportionate share of our national debt. But EPI is unwilling to let Americans know which corporate special interests are bankrolling its ad campaign -- and how much the campaign is spending. With the campaign buying both TV and full-page newspaper ads, it’s safe to assume the price tag is hefty.

The "Defeat the Debt" TV ad concludes by giving viewers its web address, but those who bother to visit the ad's website are in for a surprise. According to the online financial site Market Oracle, the Berman ad "postures to 'educate the public about the enormous federal deficit', but the DefeattheDebt.com website itself highlights how an inordinate burden of taxation is presently borne by the wealthy."

In addition to the example just cited, there are other reasons why ads or reports from Berman’s EPI should be viewed with deep suspicion. Consider the following:

* In the 1990s, a Los Angeles Times column reported that EPI was using "misleading studies" in its arguments about employment statistics.

* Last September, a spokesperson for EPI claimed the figure of 47 million uninsured Americans is "a gross overestimation of the problem" despite the fact that EPI's own website uses this very same statistic.

DefeattheDebt.com says it's planning a "virtual march on Washington, D.C." That's an appropriate tactic for EPI, whose corporate funders may prefer to use chauffeurs — not their own feet — to travel several city blocks.

In today's Washington Post, former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-NH) explains why he's so disappointing at having heard several Republican leaders cheer the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case:

When I arrived in the U.S. Senate 30 years ago, I was a proud member of a Republican Party known for championing moderation in Congress, restraint in the courts and good-government reform.

In fact, the Republican tradition of campaign finance reform in which I stand dates to the trust-buster, Theodore Roosevelt.

Rudman calls the court's ruling "a rash and immoderate ruling" that "is beyond my comprehension." And the ex-senator says he's perplexed as to why such a decision would "win praise from leaders of my party."

Rudman's eloquent words remind us that campaign finance should not be a partisan issue. In the long run, the Citizens United is likely to change the electoral and political process in America in ways that will anger and dismay both rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans.

Click here to read CREW's statement on the court's disturbing decision.

Speaking yesterday at a Georgetown University Law Center conference, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor offered a terse criticism of last week's high court ruling in the Citizens United case. The New York Times reports:

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did not sound happy on Tuesday about the Supreme Court’s big campaign finance decision last week. It repudiated a major part of a ruling Justice O’Connor helped write before her retirement from the court in 2006, and it complicated her recent efforts to do away with judicial elections.

"Gosh," she said, "I step away for a couple of years and there’s no telling what’s going to happen."

... "If you want my legal opinion" about Citizens United, Justice O’Connor said, "you can go read" McConnell.

Of course, the 2003 McConnell decision was essentially overruled by the Citizens United ruling so it speaks volumes for Justice O'Connor to say she sticks by the views expressed in McConnell.

According to TPMMuckraker's Zachary Roth, one of the biggest winners in yesterday's Supreme Court decision is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Roth writes:

... that's not just because the court's ruling gives the corporations that make up the business lobby's membership an even greater voice in the political process than they've enjoyed until now.

As we explained last week, over the last decade, under CEO Tom Donohue, the Chamber has perfected a strategy of using the Chamber as a "pass-through" for corporations looking to run issue campaigns, but wary about having their names tied to the effort. In 2001, the Wall Street Journal described this as Donohue's "striking innovation."

Click here to visit CREW's Corporate Crackdown website. This project is CREW's way to monitor corporate officials and hold them accountable when they overcharge taxpayers, unduly influence government officials, or sacrifice the public good for private profit.

Was yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court just a dream? Unfortunately, no. The headline on this New York Times editorial reminds us of the gravity of Thursday's decision:

THE COURT's BLOW TO DEMOCRACY

In its editorial, the Times writes:

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century.

Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.

Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

Politico ran a front-page story, featuring this assessment by Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director:

"We are moving to an age where we won’t have the senator from Arkansas or the congressman from North Carolina, but the senator from Wal-Mart and the congressman from Bank of America."

One day later, this ruling is no less disturbing.