That's Right, Ellen M. Arthur will be at the Madison Heights Library on the 16th of April (7 pm) ready to meet and greet and answer your questions and listen to your concerns. Please join us then. We need upgraded leadership in Richmond. In short we need your help. (We Need Ellen M. Arthur as our Delegate)
Candidate Ellen and Chairman Ned
Here's Ellen Announcing her candidacy
Ellen is a Great Speaker and equipped with good ideas and a desire to serve the voters
Ellen took questions one on one after the announcement
Ellen meets Magnolia Braxton. Magnolia is a local legend due to her tireless work during President Obama's re-election.
Former Supervisor ( and just about every job in local government) Leon Parrish chats with Ned Kabel (Democratic Chairman) while in the background on the left Nicole Steenburgh (reporter at NewsAdvance interviews Ellen M, Arthur. The tallest man in the photo (actually standing up hill directly behind Ned) Is Steve Martin, hard working democrat.
On this windy day, with your help and support, the winds of change will send Ellen M. Arthur off to Richmond to give us something we haven't had in a long time. A representative in Richmond looking out for the needs of local voters.
It is this gentlemen's 90th birthday Ellen finds out as she chats with him. Thank you for celebrating your birthday with us. He was a fierce democrat and participated loudly in the cheering and questioning during the announcement.
This was a wonderful get together and now we move in unison to create that more perfect union that will represent the citizens of Virginia's 24th District. Please join us on April 16th at 7 pm at the Madison Heights Library in the River James Shopping Center, on the Lynchburg side of the Lowes Store.
Here are some more photos, see if you recognize the people.
ELLEN M. ARTHUR
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
VIRGINIA, 24th DISTRICT
The Court Ruling That Changed Everything
When Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the deciding vote to gut a century of campaign finance law, he assured the public that the unlimited corporate spending he was ushering in would “not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Because those authorized to give and spend unlimited amounts were legally required to remain independent of the politicians themselves, Kennedy reasoned, there was no cause for concern. Has anyone ever been more wrong that Justice Kennedy?
Just five years later, in a development that may be surprising only to Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision is reshaping how, how much and to whom money flows in Washington.
How the flood of money released by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has changed elections has been the subject of much discussion, but the decision’s role in allowing that same money to soak the legislative process has largely gone unreported. According to an extensive review of public documents held by the FEC, the U.S. Senate and the Internal Revenue Service, as well as interviews with lobbyists and policymakers, Kennedy's allegedly independent spending has become increasingly intertwined with lobbying and legislation -- the precise appearance of corruption campaign finance laws were meant to curb.
Politically active nonprofits, known as "dark money" groups for their ability to shield the identity of donors, and super PACs, which take unlimited sums of money but must disclose donors, have become dominated by lobbyists and other political operatives with close ties to leaders in Congress. Meanwhile, businesses with issues before Congress are pumping increasingly more money into the lobbyist-connected organizations.
The Supreme Court initially established a narrow definition of corruption in the 1970s, but Citizens United used it to blow open the gates that had been holding back corporate money. The 2010 decision came as the U.S. legislative system had evolved into a near parliamentary system of party-line voting and expansive party networks extending seamlessly from the Capitol to party headquarters to lobbying firms to outside political groups. Most top congressional legislators now have "leadership teams" -- informal but internally recognized groups of aides-turned-lobbyists who help raise funds.
To the lobbyists working in the system he helped create, Kennedy’s vision of political spending is unrecognizable. "I think Justice Kennedy's view on this was naive at best," one lobbyist told The Huffington Post, reflecting a rare bipartisan consensus. "People are going to do what's allowed under the law." Now that Justice kennedy has totally messed up the political system in this country wouldn't it be nice if he at least apoligized for his dumb decision. Can the people trust this man with the lifetime job and declining ability to reason to do the things this country needs done?
The Supreme Court majority’s casual dismissal of the possibility that the Citizens United ruling could lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption was necessary from a judicial perspective. Citizens United and a subsequent lower court ruling essentially hold that the First Amendment prevents the government from restricting political spending independent of the candidates and parties. Yet the courts had long recognized Congress’ authority to regulate the financing of campaigns and the lobbying process in order to maintain the citizens’ trust in a democratic government. Where the choice had been between the sanctity of elections on the one hand and an unfettered interpretation of the First Amendment on the other, the courts chose to protect elections -- because without a trusted government, there is no First Amendment to speak of.
Kennedy and the other four justices, therefore, had to insist that independent political spending could not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption -- no threat of corruption meant no congressional authority to regulate that spending.
It is difficult, however, to look closely at the way laws are being made today without acknowledging at least an appearance of corruption.
Congressional aides we asked all said that their own members of Congress were certainly not influenced in an untoward way by the corporate funds pumped into efforts to re-elect them, but that it was easy to see why the public might assume that to be the case. Five years later, the judicial logic of Citizens United has unraveled.
Political advisers closely associated with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) serve as both operatives on their behalf and lobbyists for corporate clients with business before Congress. The clients are encouraged to give generously to super PACs associated with the respective lawmakers, according to lobbyists familiar with the widespread strategy.
Trevor Potter, one of the top election lawyers in the country whose clients include Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and comedian Stephen Colbert, warns that this arrangement creates exactly the appearance of corruption that courts have used to justify campaign finance limits.
“It does make a significant difference to have lobbyists involved because then you have the very lobbyists who seek official action from the members being the conduits to the money,” Potter said. “It makes them valuable to their clients because they have a good relationship with the member, and they have a tight relationship with the member because they have access to the money from their clients.”
They're making use of the opportunity. A connected super PAC and nonprofit manned by lobbyists tied to Boehner have collectively received millions from interests in the insurance, drug, energy and other industries. Big-money groups associated with McConnell have been funded by coal companies, insurers and hospitals. Mining and gambling businesses have given directly to the super PAC associated with Reid, which is staffed by two Reid confidantes, one of whom advises the lobby shop that represents those companies while she also prepares to run the senator's 2016 re-election bid. All these companies have hired lobbyists who are connected to those same lawmakers as well as to the big-money groups and who are also working on issues over which Congress has much sway. The groups they fund have spent big to put and keep Boehner, McConnell and Reid in the driver’s seat.
Tony Podesta, a Democratic super lobbyist with the Podesta Group, said that he has encouraged his corporate clients to give to super PACs and dark money nonprofits. “It’s unfortunate that we have the decision Citizens United, but as long as that’s the law of the land, then Democrats and Republicans are both active in these kinds of endeavors,” he said.
It seems 9 monkeys flipping a coin and counting the heads and tails to make the decision could give the Supreme Court a run for their money when it comes to reasoning.
Amherst County Virginia Democratic News
ELLEN M. ARTHUR
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
VIRGINIA, 24th DISTRICT
ACVDN
Amherst Democratic News
