Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091291 06/29/2012 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION – MISSOURI Altria Client Services Inc. 6601 West Broad Street Richmond VA 23230 6/28/2012 $25,000.00

C091291 06/29/2012 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION – MISSOURI Anheuser Busch 1 Busch Place St Louis MO 63118 6/28/2012 $25,000.00

C091291 06/29/2012 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION – MISSOURI Pfizer 235 East 42nd Street New York NY 10017 6/28/2012 $50,000.00

C091291 06/29/2012 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION – MISSOURI Zeneca Services 1800 Concord Pike PO Box 15437 Wilmington DE 19850 6/28/2012 $25,000.00

C091291 06/29/2012 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION – MISSOURI Visa U.S.A. Inc. PO Box 8999 San Francisco CA 94128 6/28/2012 $50,000.00

C091291 06/29/2012 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION – MISSOURI Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. 1025 F Street N.W. 10th Floor Washington DC 20004 6/28/2012 $25,000.00

C091291 06/29/2012 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION – MISSOURI Coca-Cola North America 1 Coca Cola Plz NW Atlanta GA 30313 6/28/2012 $25,000.00

C091291 06/29/2012 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION – MISSOURI E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company PO Box 80040 Wilmington DE 19880 6/28/2012 $25,000.00

C091291 06/29/2012 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION – MISSOURI Facebook, Inc 1601 Willow Rd Menlo Park CA 94025 6/28/2012 $25,000.00

C091291 06/29/2012 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION – MISSOURI LeadsOnline 15660 Dallas Pkwy Ste 800 Dallas TX 75248 6/28/2012 $15,000.00

[emphasis added]

That $290,000.00.

It doesn’t appear that corporate America is particularly interested in spending their money on the right wingnut candidate for attorney general.

A statement by Representative Todd Akins (r), at his House of Representatives web site:

Akin Statement on SCOTUS Decision Regarding Obamacare

Washington, DC – Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) released the following statement regarding today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act.

“Since its inception I have fought against the adoption of Obamacare and I applaud the innumerable citizens who have stood for freedom, common sense and the right to life in opposition to this dangerous piece of socialist engineering.

“Today’s ruling does not end the need for continued opposition to this offensive overreach into the most private aspect of Americans’ lives.  With this decision, I, my conservative colleagues and a substantial majority of Americans will redouble our campaign to defund and repeal all of Obamacare.

###

“…I applaud the innumerable citizens who have stood for freedom, common sense and the right to life in opposition to this dangerous piece of socialist engineering…” [emphasis added]

“…Today’s ruling does not end the need for continued opposition to this offensive overreach into the most private aspect of Americans’ lives…” [emphasis added]

Because, of course, the reproductive decisions of any American is definitely public business.

Seriously, we lose to these people?

Previously: Todd Akin “goes the full wack-a-doo” over the Supreme Court ACA ruling (June 28, 2012)

That sounded so good this morning I just had to repeat it here.

President Barack Obama talks on the phone with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in the Oval Office, after learning of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” June 28, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Last week:

Boehner to U.S. House on healthcare ruling: don’t gloat

June 21, 2012|Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner on Thursday told the Republican rank-and-file there will be no celebrating in Congress if the Supreme Court rules against President Barack Obama’s sweeping healthcare reform law.

“No one knows what the court will decide,” Boehner said in a memo to fellow Republicans. “But if the court strikes down all or part of the president’s healthcare reform law, there will be no spiking of the ball.”

Yeah, like anyone in his party would’ve followed that advice.

Now they can’t celebrate, but we will.

Over at the Maddow Blog, Kent Jones has some fun with Missouri’s own Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) – it’s hard, though, to figure out which is funniest, Akin’s hysterical prose or Jones’ satirical response. Go, read, laugh.  

Then cry when you remember this clown is running for the Senate to replace Claire McCaskill, who, no matter what else you may think about her, is both sane and intelligent.

*Link corrected.  

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C001135 06/28/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI FEAPAC of Missouri 11880 College Boulevard Suite 120 Overland Park KS 66210 6/26/2012 $10,000.00

C001135 06/28/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Husch Blackwell LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza Suite 600 Saint Louis MO 63105 6/26/2012 $10,000.00

C001135 06/28/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Burns & McDonnell PO Box 419173 Kansas City MO 64141 6/26/2012 $10,000.00

C001135 06/28/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Kansas City Power & Light Company PO Box 418679 Kansas City MO 64141 6/26/2012 $10,000.00

C001135 06/28/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Carey & Danis, LLC 8235 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1101 Saint Louis MO 63105 6/26/2012 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

C111205 06/28/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Jeff Fox 26 W. Brentmoor Park St Louis MO 63105 Harbour Group CEO 6/28/2012 $10,000.00

C111205 06/28/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Lewis & Clark Regional Leadership Fund P.O. Box 1013 St Charles MO 63302 6/28/2012 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Can’t tell which of candidates supports or is opposed to the Affordable Care Act mandate, can you?  

Via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Voting to hold Eric Holder in contempt for lying to congress and impeding the investigation of the death of Brian Terry over Fast & Furious. 1:34 PM – 28 Jun 12

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Democrats are staging a publicity stunt by walking out trying to portray this as about race and not justice. Sad they side with obstruction. 1:36 PM – 28 Jun 12

The best take on this, from a comment at Doghouse Riley’s place:

….because right-wing bile and unicorn farts are the proper business of the US Congress, natch….

From the actual press release from the junior senator from Kentucky:

“….Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right,” Sen. Paul said….

[emphasis added]

Yes it does, moron.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

….The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States…

….It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is….

….So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution….

[emphasis added]

Rand Paul is a fucking idiot. We lose to these people?

In the wake of today’s Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a.k.a. Obamacare, my email box has been filled with emails that sport the words “my take” in the subject line. Of special interest: Roy Blunt’s quickly rendered “take” on the decision (full text below the fold).

To take the silliest statement first, Blunt declares that the decision will lead to “greater uncertainty” for small business owners – in spite of the fact that the main source of indecision was rendered moot with today’s ruling. Some folks are slow to pick up on the obvious – and if Blunt isn’t, he’s banking on the fact that his most likely supporters are.

Blunt’s claim that the ACA will lead to higher federal spending has been dealt with ad nauseum. Almost every respectable authority has conceded that if properly implemented, the ACA has the potential to save money by tamping down health care costs. The most recent Congressional Budget Office analysis affirms that belief. Blunt’s mindless repetition of this talking point doesn’t really deserve a response – except that if unchallenged, it has the potential to continue to do harm.

One would be tempted to respond in the same vein to Blunt’s main contention, that “Obamacare will lead to higher health care premiums.” This assertion – particularly now that the mandate has been upheld – is pure fabrication and one is tempted to think that the odor it gives rise to in the current context is the reek of desperation. However, there are scenarios where Blunt’s claim of higher premiums could be realized – but if that is the case, it will be only be because of the actions of Mr. Blunt and his GOP congressional colleagues.

Ed Kilgore points out that many of the ACA’s provisions are dependent on congressional funding and that fact could allow the Republicans to wreak havoc:

…while there was a case to be made that you can’t enact something as complicated and wide-ranging as ACA as part of the budget process, there is zero doubt it would be easy to disable it simply by denying funding for the subsidies, the Medicaid expansion, the exchanges, etc., etc. All of these actions are entirely legitimate in a reconciliation bill, which cannot be filibustered. And on top of everything else, as TPM’s David Kurtz astutely observed today, the Supreme Court’s definition of the mandate as a “tax” may well make the mandate itself germane to a reconciliation bill.

If the mandate were to be repealed via such an indirect strategy, the resulting mess could result in steeply higher premiums. That mess would, of course, be due to the actions of Blunt and pals, but I’m betting they’d get their right-wing echo-chamber fired up and the traditional media would, as it so often does, take its cues from the noisiest parties, and, in the popular mind, the braying of pols like Blunt would be vindicated. I imagine lots of GOPers, not just our Roy, are hoping that this will be the way it works. Of course, to quote Kilgore again:

The best strategy for maintaining ACA, of course, is to win the damn elections.

Dear Friend,

The three questions about the President’s health care plan that have needed to be answered from day one are: Is it constitutional, is it a good idea, and can we afford it? The Court, in a 5-4 decision, answered the first question today. The American people now will decide if the President’s health care takeover is the right thing to do and whether we can afford it.

This decision does not change the fact that ObamaCare will lead to higher health care premiums, increased federal spending, and greater uncertainty for small business owners nationwide. That’s why Congress must repeal this deeply flawed law in its entirety and replace it with thoughtful, common-sense reforms that put patients and doctors in control of health care – not Washington bureaucrats.

I invite you to take a look at my video response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

In 2010, Missourians overwhelmingly rejected the individual mandate and sent a clear signal to Washington that Americans oppose ObamaCare. Elections matter, and this decision underscores the fact that we need new leadership in the White House and the Senate.

As always, I encourage you to join the conversation online by visiting my Facebook and Twitter pages and to learn more on my website.

I also hope you’ll take a moment to learn more about the common-sense health care solutions that I support.