UPDATE: The minimum number of dues-paying members needed for exemption from transparency requirements in this Act has been reduced from 1,000,000 to 500,000.
The vast majority of Americans -- both Democrats and Republicans -- considered the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United to be a colossal blunder. Whether or not the First Amendment compelled it (and IMHO, it didn't), as Justice Stevens rightly said in dissent, Americans don't believe that our politics needs more corporate influence. To the contrary, most believe it needs less. As we learn more about the blunders in mis-regulation bought by Wall Street billionaires, and as we watch black clouds of oil billowing from an offshore oil rig, never adequately inspected or monitored because regulators were "persuaded" by well (as in oil-well) funded lawmakers to turn a regulatory blind eye, who could think that this system needs more of the same? Who could believe that this system was working?
So some of us -- call us the perpetually naïve -- hoped that Citizens United might actually inspire the Democrats and this President to return to the promises that Barack "change the way Washington works" Obama made two years ago -- "to challenge the broken system in Washington, and stop letting lobbyists use their clout to get their way." "For far too long," Obama told us, "through both Democratic and Republican administrations, Washington has allowed Wall Street to use lobbyists and campaign contributions to rig the system and get its way, no matter what it costs ordinary Americans." "And if we're not willing to take up that fight," i.e., the fight to change the way Washington works, "then real change -- change that will make a lasting difference in the lives of ordinary Americans -- will keep getting blocked by the defenders of the status quo." "The reason I am running," Obama told us, to convince us there was a reason why he, as opposed to the status-quo-focused Clinton, should be our nominee, "is to challenge that system."
But the perpetually naïve were then deeply disappointed by the puny response to Citizens United that the House Democrats and the Administration came up with. The DISCLOSE Act no doubt has good ideas in it. No doubt, things would be better -- a little, on the margin -- if it passed, and if it survived hostile Supreme Court review. But the idea that this is the response to perhaps the most significant change in the economy of campaign influence in a century just hurt. Here was a chance for the Democrats to rally a nation to real reform. Here was a chance, squandered.
But now comes the "pathetic" that gets added to this "puny." The House Democrats have now agreed to a critical exemption from the reach of the DISCLOSE Act. Any 501(c)(4) group which has been around for more than 10 years, and which has more than 1,000,000 dues paying members, some in each state, and derives no more than 15% of its budget from corporate or union funding, is to be exempted from the transparency requirements of the Disclose Act.
Which groups will get the benefit of this carve out? Only one of prominence that would actually need or use the exemption: the NRA.
This is a compromise too far for us at Change Congress. So today we have joined scores of other groups to oppose this puny bill. This is not reform. It is politics as usual called reform. And reformers who believed in the candidate who promised to "change the way Washington works" are not going to sign up merely because the President would sign the bill.
Thirty years ago, a Republican taught the world that it was big, not puny, ideas that changed things. Two years ago, many of us thought that at least some Democrats had finally learned Reagan's lesson. Obama and Edwards both were talking about a fundamental change in the way Washington worked. Their ideas excited a new generation to the party.
But apparently small ideas are back in style -- incremental change only, especially in the context of electoral reform. And why is that? Has the history of tinkering that defines the campaign reform movement actually gotten us anything of value? Will the DISCLOSE Act, with its NRA carve-out, really rally the base to this "party of reform"?
Pathetic and puny victories are defeats, not victories. And they are certainly not the sort of resolve that will convince anyone that "change" has come to Washington. Not even those who thought they were already convinced.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
Wake up people!!
Do not give up--- FIGHT
Until EVERYONE starts talking and blogging and marching for Campaign Reform we are just spinning our wheels discussing anything that might challenge the special interests.
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/volunteer/petition (FENA)
http://change-congress.org/
http://movetoamend.org/
http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/petition”
bother those of us who believe the rules should be the same for all. Exempt all
or none! Obama's "fair" is leveling everyone but his "special interests".
The "Ivy" league teaches ONE THING....how to screw over everybody else in this country that didn't go to an "ivy" school. Just as now a Nobel 'prize' is seen for what is worth(nothing) so too will a diploma from these insidious institutions.....End the Kleptocracy !!
Harvard Princeton Yale Bullets Bombs and Banks
And as far as "publicly" financed elections....I got news for you: THE PUBLIC IS BROKE!
The best idea is to ban TV ads!! The sheep give money to candidates only for them to stuff that money in the pockets of the few companies that own the stations..... Ben Stein's friends!
How about a "Candidate Channel"? Kind of like ch. 19...you know....let the politicians run their ads free on cable access...during Wayne's World....AND THAT"S IT!!
Be careful what you wish for.
On the other hand, there is no reason why we can't just ban all political advertising on TV - TV being the single largest expense of an election and the reason money for re-election is so important to politicians. Whitman's $80M campaign in California - because she was running ads CONSTANTLY.
If they could ban all tobacco advertising while allowing beer and alcohol ads to continue, we ought to be able to get a ban on all political TV advertising AND see it stand in court. Without TV spending, election campaigns would be affordable to anyone choosing to run.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) held up two fists and said of her primary campaign: “Fighting Wall Street with one hand, unions with the other.”
The aftermath of the Arkansas Senate race is really quite illuminating to see just who in the Democratic Party actually stands up for its core constituents. (Hint: not a one.)
workinprogress.firedoglake.com/.../schumer-congratulates-lincoln-for-fighting-unions/ - Cached
With democrats like these who needs republicans.
liked that one! fanned!
For 50 years before Reagan we had a 63% to 94% tax rate on incomes over $212,000 so this would not be unusual.
Use the funds collected to start a PUBLIC FUNDING of Campaigns that follows strict rules.
Considering the fact that hell would have to freeze over before the U.S. Senate would have increased that miserly useless petty cash 285 million oil corporation limit for any oil diaster no matter how destructive it was to say the least a great relief for all concerned when BP showed some real class and integrity by setting up a 12 billion dollar oil disaster fund since the usual approach to most corporate disasters is to let loose their stable of over paid lawyers to pay off or hang the cases up in court for decades or until they find a friendly corporate judge and today that would not be hard to do considering that America's courts are overflowing with judges bought and paid for by those Robber Barons.
Since all these oil corporations have the same useless response plans to any oil disaster perhaps now these oil corporations will show an interest in developing new technologies and equipment that can deal effectively with such disasters for sad to admit our country and its economy is still almost totally dependent on fossil fuels and hopefully for the well being of future generations this state of affairs will change soon.
Proposing legislation that would treat some people or groups differently from others is a way for legislators to build up points, make friends, and get campaign contributions or other financial rewards.
It's what they do.
That being said, I don't plan to give up on life! I've always felt that Mother Nature will have the final word. Who's going to listen? Doesn't matter.
Instead of just giving money, stay involved at the local level. You cannot count on national politics to solve all the problems, but there is plenty you can do in your own community that does not depend on the Congress or President.
"impotent collection baskets"..lol!
You might also consider supporting instant runoff voting at the state nd national level, a process that gives parties other than Dem or repub a better chance to break in.
What exactly is the rational justification for requiring an ability to act covertly? Surely it can only be that knowledge of unconstitutional influence being exerted, might bring righteous condemnation down upon the organization involved. If there is no impropriety, what need is there to don a disguise?