We talk a lot about the influence of money in politics. It's the defining issue of this era.
But in case you need one more reason to loathe the flood of money in politics, let me offer a different perspective. That of the politician.
It may be easy to assume that politicians love being showered in money. But here's a secret: the truth is, most of us hate it. Hate it.
Candidates almost always enter politics with high-minded notions of changing the world. But, whether their race is local, statewide or national, they have to spend hours upon hours every single day raising the money to run. You may not think that's a big deal. I'm telling you -- it's all-consuming.
Even the most jaded among you would be shocked to know how much time it takes to raise the money necessary to win an election. It's worse than you think.
On Tuesday, President Obama spent his entire day raising money at five, yes five, fundraisers. And he's the incumbent! That's a whole day that could have been spent on more important priorities, like ... well, just about anything.
But he's about to be outspent 10-to-1, so if he doesn't compete financially, he's not going to have the chance to act on those important priorities in a second term. It's tough enough for politicians to do essentially two jobs -- campaign and govern -- but in this age of billion dollar campaigns, a third job -- fundraiser -- has become completely dominant. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the candidate with the most money wins 9 out of 10 congressional races and 8 of 10 in the Senate.
It's just as bad for other candidates. I've run for office -- and won -- three times, twice as governor. But I spent hours and hours every single day and night raising the money to do it.
In my re-election, I ran against a billionaire who could vastly outspend me on his own, so I had to compete. I didn't have money. I had to fundraise. And it made me sick.
I hated every minute of fundraising. I would sit in a cheap, temporary office for hours with stacks of call sheets, dialing and begging people to donate. Friends avoided my calls. If I didn't reach my daily goal, I pulled overtime -- at a tiny desk with one of those thermometer charts tracking my progress. And as a sitting governor, like all governors, believe me - -I really did have better things to do.
That's what killed me. I so wanted to do my job as governor. That's what people elected me to do. But as my fundraising people reminded me, over and over again: you won't be able to do that job unless you raise the money.
And believe me: I am certainly not alone in this story.
My experiences all took place before Citizens United. I can't even imagine how much worse the pressures are now. That case has corrupted our political system, so our politics is no longer about doing the will of the people, it's about raising the money from some of the people.
There just isn't time to do anything else. You can see why so many good men and women are no longer willing to serve in elected office.
This isn't a partisan issue -- this is a national crisis. And the fix to get money out of politics is clear: we need to amend our constitution to save our democracy.
Cross-posted at "The War Room" blog. "The War Room with Jennifer Granholm" airs weeknights at 9/8c on Current TV. Follow Jennifer Granholm on Facebook and Twitter and The War Room on Facebook and Twitter.
Follow Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JenGranholm
Robert Reich: Why the Supreme Court Will Uphold the Constitutionality of Obamacare
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
It's like saying fish hate being wet. An absurd declaration on it's face. I'd say politicians need money like they need oxygen. But in all fairness, with all you folk have done on the matter of ecological disaster and climate change, you've proven that you actually want the money MORE than the air you breathe.
The real dirty secret here is that you all love the money, and will sell out anyone or any principal to get it.
Oddly, it is also dually noted that none of you have ever truly been interested in making any real serious effort to switch over to publicly funded elections. Curious, that. Don't you think?
Did someone mistake an Onion piece for the real thing again? Or did the rich woman really just stamp her feet and tell us all how much it sucks to go around asking people for financial support like average Americans don't know it or something?! I daresay many of us would love to exchange the amounts she was asking in handouts, with what we must beg and grovel for, just to borrow with interest.
This says nothing of the bulls**t they make welfare and other financial aid recipients endure. Go back home to your mansion lady. We've actually got to find a way to eat.
So you hated fund raising while you were a politician, which basically means that you hated having to actually go out and persuade people to financially support you and your goals. This isn't surprising given your distaste for the public and free speech. Your call for a Constitutional amendment can only mean one thing: limiting the scope of the First Amendment so that politicians can be even more insulated and protected.
Corporatists like yourself are the enemy of freedom and liberty for the vast majority of Americans. By definition, if speech is more available to some than to others - as CU has ensured it will be for the foreseeable future - than it is no longer an EQUAL right.
We have a problem. The Founders wrote reams about their most fundamental value - our natural right to use our HUMAN REASON to solve our problems. Yes the corporatists and plutocrats and aristocrats have stolen our democracy. We all see the problem. Next step is to design the solution. And while we're doing that, the first thing we need to block out is the warped, dishonest, smug, cynical ramblings of corporatist apologists like yourself. The Founders wouldn't have entertained you in dialogue for so much as a second, considering how obvious your cynicism and dishonesty are to the surface.
"By definition, if speech is more available to some than to others - as CU has ensured it will be for the foreseeable future - than it is no longer an EQUAL right."
Your "definitions" are hilarious. The fact that some people have more money means that property is more available to some than to others. Thus, property rights are no longer an "equal right" under your tortured logic. Presumably, you'd physically take property from some and give it to others in order to guarantee our property rights. Let me repeat that just in case you failed to understand the absurdity: in the name of property rights, you would use force to take property from some people.
That is where your hilarious definition of rights breaks down. In order to ensure freedom of speech, you'd impose limits and restrictions on our right to speak. As I've said before, and as you have repeatedly failed to understand, this is precisely the kind of power that the government does not have under the First Amendment. If you want to give the government the power to limit us, then your recourse is to limit the scope of the First Amendment.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
The purpose of speech is to influence the government. England, for example, didn't have free speech for much of its history because it believed that power stemmed from God to the Monarch to the Parliament. Thus, although members of Parliament could speak freely, average subjects of the Crown could not. However, the power in our nation flows in sort of the opposite direction. The Founders believed that individuals were empowered through God and they passed portions of this power to their elected leaders. Thus, the right to free speech was necessary for the government to possess legitimate power.
Whether speech is used to trap or trick or manipulate or persuade or influence is irrelevant. We speak freely and we alone control what messages we listen to, what messages we believe, what messages move us to action or support. The government has no place in stepping in and limiting our ability to speak or limiting the content of our speech.
In that regard, the Court has upheld the principles of the First Amendment. We all have an equal right to speak and governmental limitations on our ability have been removed. If you wish to overturn this truth and restrict the scope of the First Amendment, then this is your choice. The freedom of speech that we all enjoy gives you the right to advocate even for limits on the freedom of speech.
I wonder if you had any issues when Obama outspent McCain in 2008 by $500 million!! Did you have a problem when Soros and other leftist billionaires spent over a $100 million in 2004 to get rid of Bush!! Did you worry when Obama raised the most amount of money ever from Wall Street in 2008???
Money spent by organization on political issues is protected by the first amendment!! Accept it and move on. Come up with ideas that could win instead of whining!!
Do you honestly in your heart believe that a president Romney would take YOUR phone call, or Shelly adelson's?
You have a great show . The WAR ROOM is equal to RACHEL Maddow.
Please explain that the TAX is only A JUST PENALTY for FREE
RIDERS.
ALSO that it applies to only about 1 %
The TeaP is really the KOCH Bother Party..........the guy from Freedom Works came on C-Span and said this is the BIGGEST TAX INCREASE in the HISTORY of Amerca.!!
We have to EXPOSE their lies.................they are doing what GOEBEL said about LIES being repeated enough will make the People believe it.
DEMS DO NOT REPEAT their lines. We should say we want to PROTECT OBAMACARE and improve on it as it is being implemented.
Disagreeing is one thing but screaming something that you either do not understand, or know to be false disqualifies you from the conversation.
Turn off Rush and read what Politifact said.
They called it "Pants On Fire!"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/rush-limbaugh/health-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/
Well, if a corporation is a person, and that corporation's dollar is speech, and then they give 1 million dollars, then it's not just speech; it's influence; it becomes votes.
Then you end up with "One person, a million votes, while everyone else just gets the one vote."
So, then what happens to democracy? Does it even exist anymore? No? Then WHY have you not arrested the men that did that to the country?
Arrested on what grounds? I don't care! Make them up if you have to, 'CAUSE you have to, 'cause it's right.
Remember in the '80s when Michael Wall Street was selling junk bonds? And when he ran out of good ones, he started selling ones he knew weren't worth anything. People lost their life savings buying these lemons. They put him on trial, and his lawyers tried to argue that what he did had never been done before and so wasn't, technically, illegal!
The final judgement, however, was the perfectly reasonable assertion that it IS wrong, SHOULD be illegal, WILL be illegal, and then we'll nail ya with it, 'cause you DO deserve it!
Now... normally, the Supreme court makes those kinds of decisions... The American people will have to, this time. There should be a shout coming from every man and woman in the country. EVERY one.
Sure, politics need some money. But strict campaign finance laws (like in Canada) make people act differently. In Canada, we are not showered with ads and ands and ads. There are some, sure. But never to the extent of the US. Campaigns are limited to 4 weeks (the fact we don't have fixed-date elections helps here). Under NO circumstance can a party, or a candidate, spend more than a set amount of money. Money here plays a role. A big one. But not such an outstanding one as in the US...
But the government can launch elections whenever it pleases them before that date. Or it can be defeated on a budget/confidence vote in Parliament. So it is not a fixed date.
In Quebec, municipalities now have fixed date elections. But only them.
Even any sane "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution in NO WAY would find that "money = speech," so folks like Scalia are ideological tools for the far right extremists, nothing more. And that's the problem, both on the Court, and now in Congress. They're driving a corporatist agenda bent on giving rich people the power, and doing their darnedest to take it away from the 99%.
But the politicians are the ones with the power to change it and don't. Why is that? Is it because they are all bought and paid for and those doing the buying don't want to change the game? If that's the case then they who's really in charge, anyway? Why do we even bother playing this ridiculous game?
So, basically, he's doing nothing but running around to fund raisers to accumulate funds. . .
Jobs, the national debt, everything on hold now.
He'll be gone in '12.