by Susanne Posel
November 4, 2014

from OccupyCorporatism Website








Elections for this mid-term year bring voters out by droves; a massive testimony to the motivated reasoning that permeates the American ideology in such an overpowering way.


Neil Malhotra, associate professor of political economy for Stanford Graduate School of Business (SGSB) explained that motivated reasoning (MR),

"is the method by which the average person views evidence and come to make decisions is not to better understand 'the truth' but, rather, to achieve self-serving goals.


One goal could be the reduction of cognitive dissonance, or holding two incompatible opinions in one's mind at the same time."

MR is defined as being,

"is an emotion-biased decision-making phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology.


This term describes the role of motivation in cognitive processes such as decision-making and attitude change in a number of paradigms, including: Cognitive dissonance reduction."

It is a well-known fact that financial contributors sway political decision-making; however voters ignore this point in order to place their vote.


Back in April, the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, decided that there cannot be caps on financial contributions to campaigns, PACs or parties because to restrict this practice would be unconstitutional.


Aggregate limits, the USSC stated, was a violation of the 1st Amendment.


Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito ruled that aggregate limits "do not prevent corruption".


The Justices wrote:

"This Court has identified only one legitimate governmental interest for restricting campaign finances:

preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.

We have consistently rejected attempts to suppress campaign speech based on other legislative objectives.


No matter how desirable it may seem, it is not an acceptable governmental objective to 'level the playing field,' or to 'level electoral opportunities,' or to 'equalize the financial resources of candidates…'


The First Amendment prohibits such legislative attempts to 'fine-tune' the electoral process, no matter how well intentioned."

Bradley Smith, election expert and founder of the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) said:

"Citizens United has become the all-purpose boogeyman. Whatever you hate about campaigns, blame Citizens United."

CU (Citizens United) supports corruption in politics as it established corporate "personhood" which is a legal fiction that is enacted as if it were true.


The emphasis on money paves the way for censorship of the 1st Amendment because CU promises that those with the money can purchase legislation that suits them.


CU has allowed corporations and unions to coerce with cash and control members of Capitol Hill that can be purchased. It is clear, through research, that since CU, spending has increased for midterm elections.


Republicans have received noticeable amounts of cash from individuals and corporations that want to make sure their favorite candidate makes it to office. The GOP has invested in more TV adverts.


CU can be seen as responsible for injecting cash into the hands of non-profit organizations because disclosures of amounts are not required.


Brendan Doherty, political scientist at the US Naval Academy, explained how presidents raise money.


Doherty said:

"The combination of rising campaign costs and contribution limits that were low relative to those costs for decades led presidents to spend increasing amounts of their scarcest resource, their time, raising campaign funds.


Citizens United accelerated these dynamics, as the prospect of outside groups receiving contributions in the millions provided an even greater incentive for President Obama to spend a great deal of time raising money in the increments in the low thousands required by campaign finance law."