The obvious, out-front effects of the post-Citizens United world of political spending are obvious for everyone to see: the hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of extra advertising by secretive unaccountable organizations. But as irritating and nefarious as all that is, the hidden effects may be even worse.
Big money has always been a huge factor in politics, of course, with the people who could write the checks and raise the cash exerting a great deal of power in the system. But in the two election cycles since the Citizens United ruling, the power dynamic has shifted dramatically in three different ways, all of which are terrible for the future of our democratic system.
The first is the fear factor. Since Citizens United, I have begun having conversations with members of Congress on a regular basis who are factoring into their voting decisions the awareness that if they piss off a big money special interest, they will have to contend with a huge amount of cash -- hundreds of thousands, even millions -- being dumped into their race. Because so much of the money is not reported, they don't know for sure when it might come or if it will come, but the fear of making someone with a bunch of money mad is so much bigger than it used to be. Because the amounts being thrown into these races are so much bigger than they used to be, and because so much more of the money is secretive, the fear factor has grown exponentially.
The second factor that is new is that the sheer amount in some of these super PACs and 501(c)(4) non-profits is making the small number of people who give the big money to them far, far more powerful than they have ever been before. There is no rule against politicians and campaigns having conversations with the people giving these huge amounts of money to these big outside super PACs, and it is documented that people like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson have been in close touch with the Romney campaign. When they are writing the kinds of eight and even nine figure checks they are, I can guarantee that Romney is listening very closely to them, and not just on policy either. Longtime Republican insider Roger Stone has said, for example, that a source has told him that the Koch brothers told Romney they would give an extra $100 million to Republican super PACs and 501(c)(4)s if he would name Ryan to the ticket, and given how much money the Koch brothers would make off the Ryan budget, that is a completely believable story. The people giving these kinds of sums are having a massive influence on the politicians running for office.
The third factor is the Unaccountability factor. Back in the day when Karl Rove was working directly for candidate and President George W. Bush, he did plenty of dirty tricks and ran lots of sleazy ads, but he was at least held partly in check by Bush having to answer for what Rove did. Now Rove is a free agent. His ads don't need to have even a semblance of truth, and his dirty tricks directly harm no candidate. Having all this completely unaccountable money flooding the system is rapidly eroding any sense of fairness and honesty in our politics.
I have been involved in presidential and congressional campaigns for almost 30 years, and I can tell you definitively that the changes in the system due to big money since the Citizens United decision are profound. The system is being corrupted to its core, and we had better wake up before our entire democratic way of life gets washed away by this flood of unaccountable money.
This post is part of the HuffPost Shadow Conventions 2012, a series spotlighting three issues that are not being discussed at the national GOP and Democratic conventions: The Drug War, Poverty in America, and Money in Politics.
HuffPost Live will be taking a comprehensive look at the corrupting influence of money on our politics August 29th and September 5th from 12-4 pm ET and 6-10 pm ET. Click here to check it out -- and join the conversation.
Follow Mike Lux on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ProgressiveLux
All political and economic policies controlled by PACs funded by and for only the benefit of large corporations, banks, financial institutions and the wealthy that own Federal and State Legislators with the goal being to control every aspect of American life from religion to the bedroom through just one political party......the Republican Party.
THE RIGHT: THE RESULTS
Not one legitimate jobs bill in the last three years during the greatest recession in American history. No legislation supporting either the middle class, main street, small business or disadvantaged since the Civil War.
Three options to take back control by We, the People:
o MASSIVE and PEACEFUL movement like civil rights
o Second PEACEFUL revolution like Serbia's overthrow of Slobodan Milošević, led by Otpor
o Second "blood and bullets" revolution
The first reform after regaining control must be publicly financed campaigns with NO contributions from:
o corporations
o unions
o PACs and SuperPACs
o professional lobbyists
o tax-exempt organizations
o individuals
The cost would be far cheaper than rebuilding the country after a second revolution.
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."
— Frederick Douglass, 1857
So freedom of speech is corrupting our political system to its core. You want your freedom of speech to raise your grievances with to your politician, which is a civic responsibility and duty to do when you feel their policies are hurting you, to be restrained. You want to take away some of your right to hold politicians accountable. Freedom from speech, not freedom of speech.
Look at someone saying or writing something, and then look at someone not only buying campaign ad after ad after ad but also financing a politician's campaign. You can't compare the two when it comes to the kind of influence money is going to have.
If I SAY something to a politician, they're not beholden to me. They need only listen to me and decide what they think about it. But if I give them a billion for their campaign... then I've got my hooks in them.
So, stuff your logical fallacy and your big lie!!
need only listen to me and decide what they think about it. But if I
give them a billion for their campaign... then I've got my hooks in
them"
If you give them billion for their campaign, they are not beholden to you anymore than if you were to talk to them.
And you can't even present a logical fallacy. Name one? There is begging the question, ad hoc, affirming the consequent, and etc.
"Look at someone saying or writing something, and then look at someone
not only buying campaign ad after ad after ad but also financing a
politician's campaign."
And no one is financing a politicians campaign, they are financing people who get together to have their political voices heard, which is by a PAC. You can form a PAC and other individuals can form one, and spend their money to have their political grievances heard.
You want to have your freedom of speech taken away. You want to violate the US Constitution.
Any registered voter could vote for and/or contribute to a duly registered candidate for president or vice president or to a political party, duly registered in his home state..
Each political party must keep very detailed records of contributions received. Each party would assign a number to each registered voter contributing, and that number, with the amount of the contribution, would be required to be publically disclosed on the web w/i 24 hours of receipt by the campaign or party.
IF, however, the amount of all contributions from one voter combined exceeds a specified amount determined by Congress, then the contributor's NAME must be published WITH the amount contributed along with all relevant detail. (date, candidate or party receiving funds, etc.) within 48 hours of receipt of a contribution resulting in total contributions reaching that amount.
No large contributions can be accepted within 156 hours of the election -- any such contributions must be immediately refused, returned or be subject to confication by the state Secretary of State and the amount would be used to defray election costs of the state.
The list of names of contributors MUST be timely published and the list of amounts from each contributor MUST be timely published -- AND the number of names and the number of amounts must be the same.
If there are any irregularities, the amounts in question involved in any irregularities will be confiscated from the candidate, campaign or party that received it by the state's Secretary of State and used to defray costs of elections.
Any "annonomous" contrubitions would confiscated by the state's Secretary of State and used to defray costs of elections.
Any political party caught willfully cheating on disclosure would face heavy mandatory fines and even disqualification in the next election for the same position. Any candidate caught cheating would be disqualified for the office for which that candidate was running and any future elections.
Any citizen voter could contribute to campaign for President and Vice President or to the national policy w/similar disclosure laws applying.
May not solve the problem but may be a beginning?
Democrats do all the same things. Why are these things bad only when Republicans do them?
And why can't liberals understand why conservatives accuse them of hypocracy and the double standard?
Since Congress is now the impetus of THE PROBLEM and its members are profitting far too much to reform itself, sorth of a successful push for another constitutional convention, that leaves only the US Supreme Court to resolve the problem.
Citizens United was a REPUBLICAN win;so, if you object to massive amounts of money -- including from foreign owned interests via their ownership of businesses operating in USA -- then the ONLY way to CHANGE the direction of the US Supreme Court is to put more Democrats, Liberals and Progressives on it, and THAT requires another Obama term.
Ca$h is NOT "free" political speech.
Ca$h is a $uper $tereo $urround $ound $ystem
that drowns out the indivdiual voices of "we, the people".
It is a known human psychology trick - If a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth.
It comes very close to outright brain-washing. Yes, it is very damaging to our public and our republic!