iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ben Zweifach

GET UPDATES FROM Ben Zweifach
 

Moon-Shot: How the President Can Exploit "Newt-onian Mechanics" and Take Down Citizens United

Posted: 03/31/2012 5:20 pm

Here's some heartening news for those of you keeping score at home: We're only halfway through the GOP presidential primaries.

Wait, don't jump!

Some good may yet come from the GOP's death-march. The race has thus far been so destructive that it's managed to do the impossible: Americans are uniting... against Citizens United. Thanks to the intraparty negativity, support for overturning the case has gone from 62 percent in January to 80 percent in March, and presented President Obama with a rare opportunity. In the off-chance that healthcare is overturned and bin Laden emerges from the Arabian Sea like the skeletons in Pirates of the Caribbean, here's fertile ground for Obama to go legacy-hunting. He should campaign for a constitutional amendment to end money-as-speech in politics. Thanks to Super PACs, Newt Gingrich, and the most damaging primary battle in two decades, it's actually becoming feasible.

The Court's decision -- in effect, to bless unlimited corporate donations to proxies "unaffiliated" with the campaigns -- has blasted Pandora's box into a million pieces. And, by god, the splinters are flying everywhere, especially into the eyes of the Republicans.

The Super PAC-hate is widespread and multi-factored, but we begin with the never-ending circus that is the Newton Leroy Gingrich campaign. The physics of presidential politics used to be simple: when popular support dried up, a campaign would run out of cash and close shop: thus, action and reaction. Not anymore, friends. We now live in a world of Newt-onian mechanics: When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, that immovable object finds a sugar daddy to bankroll his tantrums.

By all accounts, we should have been rid of the speaker after Iowa. With the exception of close relatives and a few enthusiasts in Georgia, nobody wanted to invest in a scene from Don Quixote. But, lo! Enter Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas billionaire and benefactor to Gingrich's ego-trip; he's like Magwitch, the generous convict in Great Expectations, and he's showered his bloated 'Pip' candidate with cash so feverishly, you'd think the man had developed an allergy to paper. (If you haven't been acquainted with Mr. Adelson, he feels very strongly about Israel's security, and looks a lot like the Indiana Jones villains whose faces melt off when they open the Ark of the Covenant.)

And so, thanks to a single, obscenely rich fellow, Gingrich has been permitted to extend his Monty-Python/Black Knight imitation until we all go bananas.

(Watch Newt below. "Tis but a flesh wound!").

Yet as Gingrich runs around the country insisting he's a "world-historical figure," waving farcical gas station logos, and making promises about plummeting prices plausible only on his imagined moon colony, Republicans and Democrats alike are struck by the utter preposterousness of the charade. Nothing has so exposed the laughable impracticality of Citizens United as crisply as Mr. Adelson's one-man marching band for a dude most Americans wouldn't trust running a 7-Eleven. So, really, I suppose we should thank Adelson and join him in Vegas to celebrate.

Beyond the Gingrich specter, Super PACs have also led to the most negative bloodbath in primary history. Hit-job ads are effective at destroying their target, but have also, historically, blemished the attacker enough to discourage unbridled use. It's the reason you don't see Coke running commercials that begin with an ominous voice whispering "Pepsi tastes good... but is it really healthy for you?... Coke is an American company with American values." It's unbecoming.

But from behind the veiled anonymity of Orwellian names like "Restore our Future," there's no incentive to hold back. Hence, the thousands of shockingly aggressive intraparty assaults, the likes of which nobody has ever seen. Voters everywhere have felt ambushed by the cascade of constant primal shrieking. They can't escape it; not in hotels, not in cars, not in their homes. The attacks have disillusioned Americans' already cynical view of government, and left a bad taste in their mouths. And rest assured, the general election is going to make this look like Jenga. Americans in swing-states will be vomiting in trash bins by November.

Finally, and most importantly, Super PAC vitriol has left the GOP nominee-in-waiting with a bloody nose. Thanks to nuclear exchanges like this one, Mitt Romney's unfavorability rating has hit 50 percent, an unprecedented number for a nominee. When and if Mr. Romney loses the election, look for Republicans to blame the Citizens-encouraged brawling for delivering a wounded candidate into the ring. The party is already adopting the narrative.

So, what to do? Rebalancing the Court could certainly lead to a reversal, but President Obama should go big -- blaze the trail with a call for constitutional amendment. There are enormous hurdles, of course. For one thing, the requisite two-thirds Congressional support and three-fourths state ratification is a daunting percentage in 2012 America. But polls indicate we're already close, and the fall battle will only spike support. And, yes, Obama's endorsement of his own Super PAC will expose him to charges of hypocrisy; but surely few reasonable voters expect a candidate to unilaterally disarm while the current law stands. We didn't abolish our nuclear weapon stockpile to set an example during the Cold War, after all. Of course, most difficult will be the corporate lobbyists standing in the way of a campaign finance overhaul.

But the public is on the president's side. Such a call to action would be bold; popular; and necessary. America's owner's manual needs revising. The Super PAC pandemonium has made that clear.

So shoot for the moon, Mr. President. Just make sure you don't hit Newt's colony.

 

Follow Ben Zweifach on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BenZwei

Here's some heartening news for those of you keeping score at home: We're only halfway through the GOP presidential primaries. Wait, don't jump! Some good may yet come from the GOP's death-march. T...
Here's some heartening news for those of you keeping score at home: We're only halfway through the GOP presidential primaries. Wait, don't jump! Some good may yet come from the GOP's death-march. T...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 45
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
Snoopie141
Please don't follow shiny objects.
09:49 PM on 04/01/2012
I just think of all the money these super PACs have spent that could have done America alot more good if they had used it for helping the homeless, feeding children, donated to help build or remodel the elderly or disabled homes. Or how much it could have helped small towns with much needed improvements.Instead they waste it on advertisment, lying, name calling...the only ones that have made off like bandits is the media.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PatWard
model for Rodin
12:29 PM on 04/01/2012
Money=free speech, and the wealthy gain more and more control. This will result in the further polarization of wealth. History shows us that that wealth differentiation leads to very serious problems with a disgruntled society. In this world of rapid communication and consequently a rapid coalition of dissent, this may very well lead to some very serious problems.
11:07 AM on 04/01/2012
Interesting, but I have to ask which Constitution of the United States do you plan on amending the conservative or liberal one?
02:49 PM on 04/01/2012
The one as interpreted by our courts (i.e. not my favorite version: the one where the first amendment applies to financial contribution), thus the need for amendment. Thx for reading.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CPAwADD
Always look on the bright side of life.
09:41 AM on 04/01/2012
I see the rise of the shell corporation becoming fronts for big donors.
09:16 AM on 04/01/2012
Obviously a hot topic which should remind us of what has been said about accepting the belief that corporations are people when Texas executes one of them. It seems that corporations have the benefits of people without all the liabilities. These groups hide a multitude of sins behind the veil of secrecy. Including the the plutocracy, there should be a timely disclosure of who gave what to whom for the present with small donors being exempt. Let's face it folks, no one person has all the answers but a shortened election cycle, term limits, public financing of campaigns and the elimination of Super Pac's are reasonable places to start the discussion if we as Americans really are serious about "taking the country back" .
08:35 AM on 04/01/2012
But you're ok with Obama raising $45 million last month?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CPAwADD
Always look on the bright side of life.
09:39 AM on 04/01/2012
I am. I've always thought unilateral disarmament was a bad idea. Obama does have many wealthy backers but his money from small donors in the last election was unprecedented.
09:42 PM on 04/01/2012
THEY WERE HOPING FOR CHANGE,BUT SAW NONE FROM OBAMA.
photo
h111aryc1inton
Just trying to tell the truth
09:26 AM on 04/02/2012
Please ignore the man behind the curtain - the Obama campaign turned off all of the safety valves that are put in place to prevent people from donating more than the legal limit - so unprecedented is the correct word, just not the way you meant it.
S M V
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses
08:12 AM on 04/01/2012
This article is factually wrong. Sheldon Adelson's spending as an individual was uneffected by Citizens United. He as an individual was able to spend unlimited money promoting his political views since, Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.

All citizens united did was put groups of people at the same level as rich individuals

Second: citizens united is a good thing for democracy. It is allowing political views not endourced by either party to have a chance of being heard. Want to talk about ending wars when both parties support them? Create a PAC and run ads. Ending the drug war, eliminate the Fed, close GTMO. All can be pushed by private groups and be heard during an election.

Finally money is speach. If you disagree then try to get elected without money.
10:55 AM on 04/03/2012
i think perhaps i should have been clearer: under current election law, individuals are limited to giving 2500 or less to a political campaign. Citizens and the SuperPacs it spawned have found an end-around that limitation. by allowing corporations (like a superpac) to spend unlimited amounts of money on ads for a CANDIDATE (not say, a policy issue) (even if not officially affiliated to campaign), adelson can now empty his coffers into such a corporation/pac, where before he couldn't. pre citizens, incredibly wealthy people made a difference in fundraising just b being bundlers (recruiting their rick friends, etc), whereas now, somebody like adelson can sidestep the restrictions by funding a giant SuperPac with endless money. ur right that since buckley individuals can spend unlimited money on THEIR OWN VALUES/ISSUES, but they were not allowed to spend unlimited money on supporting a specific candidate.
RealistBC
Micro-bios must pass muster.
05:51 AM on 04/01/2012
"So shoot for the moon, Mr. President?" Obama? Please. CANDIDATE Obama would have said all the right things in 2008, only to have President Obama fail to deliver on them. Incumbent Obama has no power to do anything more than talk with the House in GOP hands. Should the GOP manage to take power in the Senate, they will then be putting words in Obama's mouth for the entire second term.

We'll be looking back on the first term as the Good Old Days if that happens.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mistinguette Grandison
No. Corporations are NOT people
10:01 AM on 04/01/2012
So signing an executive order requiring transparency of the Super PAC donations isn't a sign where he stands on this?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
LiberalBuzz
Voting republican is voting against America.
01:52 AM on 04/01/2012
I'd love to see that, but, and this is a rather large but, all politicians can see is tens of millions being spent for them. And superpacs hiring their family and friends at outrageous salaries and expense accounts.

it's corruption on a biblical scale.

Parting the Red Sea was easier than getting politicians to give up tens of millions in free money to help keep them in their cushy taxpayer funded healthcare, great retirement package, and a new job making ten times as much on K Street.

Not gonna happen but if it does, I'll be first in line to vote Citizens United down.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RobertHenryEller
a micro-bio hp can handle
12:08 AM on 04/01/2012
A better plan is, as you also suggest, rebalancing the Courts. Actually this could be much easier than getting a Constitutional amendment, which, I would say would be impossible for any initiative; No one could get the requisite number of States to agree with enough other States on anything.

So, to rebalance the Court: Elect a Democrat to the White House (In the present case Obama.). Keep electing Democrats until Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas, or at least most of them, are retired or dead and buried. Appoint Justices who are not on the take, and in the pockets of the Koch brothers. Who don't believe it's their prerogative to appoint Presidents, empower corporations while disenfranchising citizens, and vetoing legislation that personally offends them.

The Court has in fact shown that it doesn't matter how you amend the Consitution. If you have the wrong people in the Supreme Court, they will thumb their nose at it. How else to explain Bush v. Gore and Citizens United?
11:37 AM on 04/01/2012
All good points, though unfortunately Obama himself will be unlikely to fill anything but Ginsbergs seat, given age and justices unwillingness to retire during an opposing administration for the reason you suggest. Thx for reading.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RobertHenryEller
a micro-bio hp can handle
11:52 AM on 04/01/2012
True, but if Ginsberg goes, and Romney is President, things get much worse. As far as I'm concerned, Bush v. Gore was already an abuse of SCOTUS power. I don't know what mechanism might exist to correct things like that. I only know I have not seen anyone try to hold SCOTUS to account. Thanks, and thanks for your article.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RobertHenryEller
a micro-bio hp can handle
11:58 PM on 03/31/2012
Obama can't get the Republicans to support his bills, and you want Obama to propose a Constitutional amendment?

Frankly, if Citizens United and Super-PAC groups are destroying the GOP and their candidates, I say, why would we want this to stop.

I love having Newt and Ricky around to bite at Willard's heels. Have at 'em, boys!

They all deserve each other. Let American's get good and sick of the attack ads. The best way for people to find out that maybe they don't want what they think they want is to give it to them.

I have no sympathy, I've been tortured for decades by ubiquitous Kenny G. elevator music everywhere I go, even in the lobby's of supposedly upscale hotels. Let everyone see how it feels to be aurally and visually assaulted. Give them Ricky's Obamaville. Let them choke on it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Anderson
When the Rebels become the Tyrants
12:53 AM on 04/01/2012
It's a good argument, a good platform, and a good way to make the Republicans look hypocritical. It'll also keep the issue in the public's mind leading into the general election.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RobertHenryEller
a micro-bio hp can handle
05:46 AM on 04/01/2012
I cannot tell for sure, but I think you are siding with the writer of the article. I do not disagree with him theoretically, only practically. As to your argument, campaign and "non-campaign" financing are certainly a big issue. But I don't think this election is running on issues other than fear. The GOP is running on the fear their base has about Obama, some of it self-generated, a lot of it stoked by the GOP and their funders. On the other side, Obama supporters fear any and all of the GOP candidates and platforms. It would be great to have an election based on issues, but I don't think this is going to be one of those elections. The last election was similar, this one even worse. Believe me, I wish you were right. But making the Republicans look hypocritical? That's the fuel they run on! Have you seen any evidence that their supporters are capable of even noticing, let alone acknowledging or reacting to, Republican hypocrisy?
03:27 AM on 04/01/2012
The negative ad campaigns in the primary will pale compared to the sh1tstorm the republican SuprePACs will unleash on Obama in the general election.
This will be the ugliest election in US history, and it will be extremely one-sided: the negative campaigns are run by the SuperPACs and while Obama's raised a lot of money for his campaign, his SuperPAC is tiny compared to the many hundreds of millions in the conservative SuperPACs.
We could conceivably see a billion dollars spent just on smear against Obama.

More likely much of that amassed conservative SuperPAC wealth isn't going to get spent in the election, and will then transform in to pressure groups, just like Ron Paul did with his excess campaign millions last election when he created Campaign For Liberty. And then all of this will repeat the next election cycle. And the next.

The conservative justices in the supreme court passed the ridiculous Citizens United ruling because the Koch brothers believed it would favor the republican party. They were not wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RobertHenryEller
a micro-bio hp can handle
05:51 AM on 04/01/2012
Can't argue with any of that. But I also think there are some people with money, if they see things going too far in the general election, might contribute significantly to a counteracting Super PAC. Let's see what emerges. But with all that, I think this election is going to come down to whether or not Barack Obama finally understands and demonstrates his understanding, of exactly what he needs to say and do. If he tries to rope-a-dope Romney, tries to play the adult, doesn't come right out and call Romney's lies lies, he will lose.
photo
h111aryc1inton
Just trying to tell the truth
08:38 AM on 04/02/2012
ONE BILLION DOLLARS - that is the amount that President Obama is expecting to raise in this election cycle. Please stop making it sound like he will be out gunned in this race.

And let's not forget who went back on his pledge when it came to campaign financing in the last Presidential Election....

Or who it was that "turned off" the safety valves that are put in place to make sure individuals do not donate too much money to a campaign...

Citizens United was designed to allow groups of people to donate to a cause they believed in and to get their voice heard...by the way, when will I hear anyone say that Unions should not be allowed to donate the way they do now?
11:39 PM on 03/31/2012
"Here's some heartening news for those of you keeping score at home"
Ah well, yes, another article presuming once again that all Huffington Post's readers are liberal democrats. Or is that wishful thinking? Regardless, it's refreshing to see another piece admit it's own bias.
photo
Intolerantcentrist
No thanks…I brought my own air.
11:16 PM on 03/31/2012
“[T]he appointment of the right men to key posts is the third step in making the law as much a matter of politics as of justice.”

--- "The Tweed Ring" by Alexander Callow
11:09 PM on 03/31/2012
Oh yes the box is now open and if the health bill is overturned there are a lot that will now be on the block. And the G.O.P. is not going to like it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shankapotomus
10:15 PM on 03/31/2012
Better think about citizens united O wouldn't have much this year without it.