Since I last wrote about Stephen Colbert's hysterical satire of super PACs, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) disclosure deadlines have passed, and we now have a somewhat less murky picture of how super PACs are operating. The bottom line is that certain extremely wealthy people have become the golden-egg-laying geese of campaign finance.
And nearly all of the candidates remaining in the Republican presidential primary have their golden geese. Foster Freiss' six-figure donation to Rick Santorum's Red, White and Blue fund earned him a spot on stage next to the former senator's wife and daughter during his victory speech in Missouri. Hedge fund manager John Paulson and investment banker Edward Conard gave one million each to the Restore our Future super PAC that supports Mitt Romney. Sheldon and Miriam Adelson's eight-figure donation kept Newt Gingrich's entire campaign afloat, and many argue that without that check the former Speaker would not have been able to win the South Carolina Republican primary.
This new reality isn't just affecting Republicans. Last week, President Obama's campaign team faced the music of a post-Citizens United election. President Obama's Campaign Manager, Jim Messina, said that Democrats cannot "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican super PACs. In order to stay competitive in the "arms race" of campaign finance, President Obama's own super PAC, Priorities USA, scheduled just a dozen meetings with Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, business leaders and finance executives. The message is clear: each candidate, including the incumbent President, needs a golden goose to compete.
Presidential elections aren't the only campaigns being affected by Citizens United. Given the lower sums necessary to run successful congressional campaigns, super PAC donations are liable to have an even greater impact on those races.
The FEC's data shows that America is harkening back to campaign finance rules of the Nixon era, when donors such as W. Clement Stone and a few other wealthy men bankrolled nearly a quarter of the cost of then Vice President Nixon's entire presidential campaign. The money left over from the campaign ended up being the seed money for President Nixon's clandestine activities against his political rivals culminating in the Watergate scandal. The reforms to campaign finance law enacted since that low point in American political history have been completely undone by the Citizens United ruling, and now we are right back where we started.
So what does this enormous infusion of cash from a few wealthy donors do to our political system? Just like it was during the Nixon era, Americans have historically low opinions of their government. In a poll released January 19, a majority of voters across party lines agreed with the following statement: "Given what I see in the presidential race, I am fed up with big donors and secret money that controls which candidate we hear about. It undermines democracy." Voters believe that big money controls politics, and when it comes to this new method of campaign finance, they are correct. Of the nearly $200 million in super PAC expenditures, more than half came from fewer than 200 individuals.
A famous political cliché is that money is the mother's milk of politics and it would be impossible to eliminate money from campaigns. Advertising, efforts to get voters to the polls and campaign staff require funding. But what is most disconcerting is when that funding comes from a very small number of individuals and organizations. Small contributions by large numbers of Americans become nearly irrelevant. Candidates no longer need to convince their future constituents to donate what they can to the campaign because they believe in that candidate's leadership. Campaign fundraising will be boiled down to convincing a few extremely successful Americans that their interests will be served if the candidate is elected. And make no mistake about it, political donations are not charity. Expectations of favorable policy positions come along with those multi-figure checks.
Super PACs essentially remove the cap on total donations to campaigns, and as such, the Citizens United decision has a multiplier effect on the influence a small group of the wealthiest Americans have over our political system. It is unfortunate that so few of our political leaders are willing to take a stand against these insidious fundraising practices, all of which directly weakens the resiliency of the American political system.
We need to spread the word to those less fortunate than us.
We need to help those souls out there understand their "wedge issue" will be safe, if they get the money out of politics.
Help them understand that the real threat to their "way of life" is the money changers in Washington.
Return to the Nixon era....I agree whole heartily with that. Maybe not in the sense you mean tho. I lived through that time as I believe you did too....I was college kid back then, weren't you. We had ideas, we had thoughts, we came out in demonstrations by the thousands, and we were ignored.
Heck, the vaunted American left called us the infantile left. The right only recognized those they could get to do the foot slogging work for them. No one, left or right took us seriously. Yeah, they temporarily lowered the drinking age and they lowered the voting age. But they did then, and still do, put up roadblock after road block to college aged voters, well, voting.
Worse. When the kids, whether in college or out working, actually come out in support of some one, we discount him. Nader was a non-starter. Disregarded. And later a traitor. It didn't matter how many college kids supported him.
Today, Ron Paul is a nut. Never discussed seriously in the media. Not even here. (where's the Maine coverage?). And yeah, college kids support him. Too bad.
Today when we combine the corrupt "judgment" on Citizens United , with gerrymadering going on in every State , with the idiotic Electoral College winner takes all .... Our country can only be described as a PLUTOCRACY by any honest detached observer.
The entire political system is 110% rigged now to re-elect incumbents, and to do so with political money going straight to the candidate unchecked , and unlimited . Any one that says otherwise is simply spinning the truth . The enormous amounts of money going to politicians a all levels are simply corrupting them to the core .
I can understand the corrupt Conservative Justices "judgment" ... For it was to help the people that gave them their jobs...What I can't understand for the life of me is the people that support this traitorous behavior by Justices that know full well what will happen to our country's Democracy .
Frankly these Conservative justices should be boycotted , and shamed by the legal profession, academia, and the general public.
What a bunch of crooks these guys are .
Nixon had people break into opponent's campaign headquarters - nothing to do with money.
Being born in 1950, I'm suspicious of historical comparisons that rely on HP reader's youth. I first voted for McGovern, saw him speak in Providence RI in 1972. I was working in a bank there, my boss looked just like Nixon. I had just gone for induction with "F the US Army" painted on my chest.
I remember the Nixon era well. It was completely unlike today. Why does everything have to be like something before? Iraq was not Vietnam, today is not the Nixon era. History does not repeat itself, today has nothing in common with the early '70s. ("Almost Famous" - THAT was the early '70s, absolutely nailed it.)
I was at Woodstock, and even I don't see everything as a flashback :-)
When will this be overturned?? If this is going to be the norm, then we will never have a president that is in touch with the realities of main street.. Do you think anyone will donate this much money to someone running for president that is not rich and does not have rich friends to begin with?
This ignores a large constituency (grown sadly larger by a politically-borne recession) that can't find enough money to cover food, shelter, an medications, much less pay fictional tribute to a political candidate, and predictably, these constituents are frequently treated as disposable in political decisions. Moreover, middle-class contributors have mortgages, college educations, and saving for retirement competing with the cost of supporting a political representative (who may not support their interests anyway).
The huge and lavishly funded lobbying industry is like a virus feeding on democracy; intercepting the will of the public and churning out copies of its own agenda dressed up as legislation. How often does the mainstream press report that a popular bill is blocked by opposition from a powerful lobby, or that specific carve-out advantages are granted to wealthy political patrons? Where is the role of these overseers endorsed in the Constitution?
If this is not corruption, what does the word mean?
That's an irresponsible thing to say, especially when the rejected alternative (McCain-Feingold) was to blatantly deny freedom of speech.
In the financial realm Republicans would take us back to pre-Great Depression days when robber barons could decide unilaterally the terms of employee's wages, working conditions, health coverage (if any) and even in how easily those employers could pollute the land and air everyone, including their own employee's, breath.
In the social realm Republicans would like to base all government and employment decisions on a moral code they decide. Freedom for religion (Christianity being the only religion that counts to them) to dictate terms to their employees, but more importantly to government. Republicans would like the church to decide all social issues, regardless of the effect on health or civil liberties or society.
In the political arena Republicans are comfortable with the very very few of the very very wealthy being allowed and able to bankroll entire campaigns because Republicans can only sway large groups of people by using fear-mongering, hyperbole, hatred, misinformation, misrepresentation and outright lies. It is far easier for them to go to a handful of the super wealthy and telling them the truth, that they will work towards making policy that favors those individuals.