Ever since the Supreme Court handed over to corporations the right to anonymously pump unlimited amounts of money into influencing elections, we no longer know who is behind those nasty attack ads flooding the airways these days.
Shadowy corporate front groups using patriotic sounding names like Karl Rove's and former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's "American Crossroads" and the billionaire Koch Brothers' "Americans For Prosperity," along with dozens of others like them, are funneling hundreds of millions of dollars from unidentified donors into ads against candidates and elected officials who could throw a monkey wrench into their extremist agenda.
Leading the progressive counterattack nationally is Public Citizen, which was created by Ralph Nader some forty years ago and is still watching our backs and best interests, oftentimes taking issues right up to the Supreme Court -- and winning. Hundreds of thousands of supporters are now on board for a Constitutional Amendment to take back our democracy, including a petition out there now to Senators to step up to the plate against the Citizens United ruling, which threw the keys to our government over to those secret special interest donors. Public Citizen reports that only 10% of groups running ads in the primaries in favor of Republicans have revealed their donors, while 50% of Democrats' supporters have. In 2004, disclosure was at 100%.
The FEC, meanwhile, has been moribund, unwilling to enforce the law or even clarify its own regulations, according to Public Citizen, who added: "Republican members of the FEC have interpreted the disclosure law into oblivion and have deadlocked the agency against taking any further action."
As a result, so long as these special interest groups do not do anything formally attached to a candidate's campaign, anything goes, with no spending limits and disclosure requirements ignored by a feckless FEC . And because of the Supreme Court decision, no longer is there a difference between a live human being and a corporate entity with regard to political spending, allowing corporations to throw their money into influencing elections without limits. Personhood granted to corporations closed the gap between them and the influence of ordinary citizens and the small-donor, people power that swept the Republicans out in '06 and '08. Anyone with an ounce of brains knows corporations are not people, yet this concept appears to have eluded the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
On the same day the DISCLOSE ACT (mandating disclosure of funders behind attack ads) was defeated in the Senate, the House Administration Committee passed the FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT with wide support -- a major step in moving towards a public financing system in campaigns. This issue cannot die and must be pressed forward with renewed energy, regardless of the results on November 2.
Returning the voting process to all Americans is an imperative, because elections are ours and belong to us, not Big Oil or the health insurance companies or investment banks. Have we forgotten that in a democracy it is the people who rule? And so, to neutralize Citizens United, we must have a Constitutional Amendment to retake our democracy.
Public financing and a Constitutional Amendment won't be an easy fight, but it is a fight worth having, as our democracy depends on it. Nothing else will change in our politics until these two issues are resolved, once and for all.
A major victory occurred a few days ago with the announcement that Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, contacted the I.R.S., requesting a full investigation of not only Karl Rove's "American Crossroads," but of all groups improperly using tax exempt status to manipulate
elections.
Thanks to Kevin Zeese, Executive Director of the prosperityagenda.us, for lighting the fire with six thousand letters to Congress as a part of its American Crossroads watch. Zeese, along with Public Citizen, has sent a letter to the FEC to investigate. With the foxes guarding that henhouse, however, a next stop at the Justice Department to investigate criminal activity by these front groups is more prudent. The case is strong.
Republicans who have responded to my posts on the topic only refer me to links to articles written by conservatives saying the Unions are doing as bad or worse.
After I read this article, I posted something about it on another HuffPo article, giving the link that Pearl provided as well as the one provided by another poster here. I got no response whatsoever.
So, if it's up to the people on the bottom, from where I'm standing, the outlook is gloomy.
Some people have said we've already reached the tipping point--that the Corps have already gained so much power that it's beyond hope. Is this accurate?
I feel we little people can only do so much in this climate. People are so polarized and married to their ideas that civil conversation is nearly non-existent. Republicans and Tea Partiers are determined to hate the Progressive agenda. It seems the Faux Propaganda Channel has done its job well.
We need courageous leadership. The powers-at-be have us all working so hard to survive that few people have the time and energy to start revolutions. The media spends more time on celebrities. I don't mean to be negative, but this is the experience I'm having.
We need leaders of integrity and courage.
Interesting that Republicans respond to your posts. They do follow the posts and news and deliver their lock steps points of view and philosophy. The Dems unfortunately have not learned how to be on a message nor do they have a message Hence their difficulty in this election season. They should be on offense instead they are on defense.The many flavors of Dems is the issue. And so we need more progressives in congress, getting rid of tepid Dems.
Yes we do need leadership. We do not create statesmen as they do in Europe. Our last one was FDR.And this must change from within the party. Check out my post on THE DNC,DCCC AND DSCC NEED MAKE OVERS.
You are right on all counts M.B. but PLEASE don't give up the fight as that is what the conservatives are counting on. A disinterested, poorly informed, frightened public.
A Constitutional amendment turning back the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision has been proposed. The Citizens United decision allows unlimited, anonymous, and potentially foreign money in--to influence both political ads, and lawmaking, via lobbyists. However, such an amendment will not come fast enough to ensure fairness now (nor could the Congress act in time). So it may be up to us, the people.
Unfortunately, we are left completely open and unprotected--this danger creeps into the heart of our nation at this very moment. In fact, the US Chamber of Commerce is hard at work funneling funds to politcal ads, and making great plans to vastly expand the influence of corporate control.
What's remarkable is 80 percent of the public is against the CU decision! How many issues do the American people agree on to such a large degree? The answer is few--Americans stand firmly against this atrocity.
"Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html
So, our upcoming election is based on a premise that 80 percent of Americans disagree with. That's shocking! But there is something we can do about it, now.
First and foremost, go out and vote. But then, ones the votes are counted, we have it within our rights to reject the outcomes of elections tainted by money 80 percent of us reject.
A progressive Secretary of State could refuse to certify the results of an elections for any state. Sure, they might be fired, but it would make this issue even more visible. At the same time, citizens could hold massive revolts against the election results, since so many of them agree that they are based on the flawed premise of tainted money.
Will a brave Secretary of State come forward?
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain."
- Thomas Jefferson to Larkin Smith, 1809.
"It is the duty of the governed, to endeavour to rectify the mistake, and appease the passion. They have not at first any other right, than to represent their grievances, and to pray for redress, unless an emergence is so pressing, as not to allow time for receiving an answer to their applications which rarely happens. If their applications are disregarded, then that kind of position becomes justifiable, which can be made without breaking the laws, or disturbing the public peace. This consists in the prevention of the oppressors reaping advantage from their oppressions, and not in their punishment. For experience may teach them what reason did not; and harsh methods, cannot be proper, till milder ones have failed.
If at length it become undoubted, that an inveterate resolution is formed to annihilate the liberties of the governed, the English history affords frequent examples of resistance by force. What particular circumstances will in any future case justify such resistance, can never be ascertained till they happen. Perhaps it may be allowable to say, generally, that it never can be justifiable, until the people are FULLY CONVINCED, that any further sub-mission will be destructive to their happiness."
- John Dickinson, The Pennsylvania Farmer's Remedy, 1768.
You are quite a debator. NOT.
http://www.demanddisclosurenow.org/
Thanks for the link.
It would be much more expeditious to pass a clean elections law with comprehensive election campaign finance reform and severe criminal penalties for election fraud.
I am an advocate for the passage of the Fair Elections Now Act and have mentioned it in several of my posts.. What kind of penalties, and what would constitute fraud? I think that after Nov. 2nd. this issue will rise to the surface and the need for change in campaign finance will hopefully become a hot topic..
This issue can't be ignored much longer.
If the corporations win next week, Democracy in the U.S. is over.
Trying to control the flow of money is a sure loser. We have a century of experience to show us that. So why not try something really new?
Internet voting is coming to the USA. Lets start planning on how we can use it to enhance our democracy. An election system based on Internet voting could neutralize the main power of Big Money, and EQUALIZE rich and poor in all US elections.
Picture yourself watching debates online or on TV. At the end of the hour, you log on to your county’s secure voting website. The efforts of Big Money to condition your mind with ads will be futile. Your voting decision will be based on the debates you just watched. Candidates won't need Big Money because they can campaign online and via the debates.
Impotent ad campaigns + debt free officials = enhanced democracy. Internet voting!
Thomas Jefferson warned of the excesses of corporate power and as we see nothing has changed. With internet voting you raise some interesting possibilities that should be explored further.
Anything for enhanced Democracy, I am all for that. Thanks.
And for the records unions no where match the dollar amount coming from the corporate and special interest sector.
Claude Rwaganje pays taxes on his income and taxes on his cars. Rwaganje isn't a U.S. citizen and isn't allowed to vote. That may soon change.
Portland will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal giving Non U.S. citizen, legal residents the right to vote in local elections, joining San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it.
Opponents say immigrants already have an avenue to cast ballots -- by becoming citizens. Allowing noncitizens to vote ,they say, could lead to fraud and unfairly sway elections.
San Francisco Nov. 2, will ask voters whether they want to allow noncitizens to vote
Noncitizens are allowed to vote in elections in Chicago and (6) towns in Maryland, said Ron Hayduk, NYCU professor, author of "Democracy for All: Restoring Immigrant Voting Rights in the United States."
The Maine ballot asks whether legal immigrant residents but not U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in elections. If the measure passes, noncitizens would be able to cast ballots in elections...
The Maine League of Young Voters, estimates there are 7,500 immigrants in Portland, half not U.S. citizens.
Somali, Abdirizak Daud, 40, came to Portland in 2006. He hasn't been able to find a job. ... between his limited English and the financial demands, Daud hasn't been able to become a citizen.
"I like the Democrats. I want to vote for Democrats, but I don't have citizenship,"
In the New Year this will have to be addressed and am certain it will be. Time to pull this hot potato out of the oven, it has been cooking way too long.
First look at the core issue that SCOTUS had in this case and here is the main issue
"The regulatory scheme at issue may not be aprior restraint in the strict sense. However, given its complexity and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and the heavycosts of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmen-tal agency for prior permission to speak. The restrictions thus func-tion as the equivalent of a prior restraint, giving the FEC poweranalogous to the type of government practices that the First Amend-ment was drawn to prohibit."
Too much power was given to a government agency; the court said this was the main issue.”
Once you resort to public financing of elections, how will it be administered? It will need to be administered so now you are back at square one; people to express or to run for political office will need to go before a governmental agency and seek funding and in doing so be asking a government agency for permission. Would a constitutional amendment stop self financing of campaigns?
Given your desire to protect our democracy; it seems to me that this will only further erode political freedom.
A constitutional amendment should certainly address self financing which helps to create that un level field. Look at Calif.and Conn.with Meg and Carly.Of course some structure would have to be created to deal with public finance of campaigns.
I haven't thought yet about how that should be dealt with?
Thanks.
Are you equally consistent?
GOOD THINKING. THANKS .And I will consider using your suggestion.
I can't phantom for a second on how these Justices are so easy persuaded to trade in their integrity for such as ruling as this.
Can I ask what kind of ramifications can occur if all the Unions stood together in opposing this law so that they would not be included in the wording?
I really don't think they can benefit much from this as do corporations because they are much more transparent in their givings because they have to report to their members right?
Secondly, having the word "Unions" attached to this ruling gives it the perception that its just leveling the playing field and making it fair on both sides.
If Unions can all say that this ruling is distorted and unfair and won't abide by it, can it help force changes to be made to this?
Unions would and should be included in the Amendment. They of course have their partisan issues. The field must be leveled so the People benefit from such an over hall.Unions would have to abide by the law of the land and could not decide to op out
I heard union leaders speaking against the CU ruling on the radio but I dont know if it was an official position.
You also have to weigh in that Unions have a bureaucratic way of doing business and therefore its not up to a select few that will decide where funds go to.
Thus the ruling really supports the corporations more than Unions. A donation from a corporation doesn't have to go thru the hoops and the bureaucracy anymore since the ruling has made it easier to give unlimited amounts of funds without being tracked. This can mean 1 donor or just a select few. So this ruling is skewed giving the ultimate power to corporations and a "strawman" symbolic gesture to the working class to stick it where the sun don't shine.
What are they? Buildings?
What about all the campaign dollars the unions are pumping in? Is that an assault on our democracy, too? Or is the plan only to render donations to the GOP unconstitutional?
Thus including Unions into the law is kinda moot. Since Unions report their givings and corporations don't have to.
Their "givings"? This is about reporting names. And we all know WHY those names aren't publicly released, don't we? You liberals would be ripping those people apart to the point where it wouldn't be worth their while to contribute, given the rabid bashing and demagougery they'd be subjected to. Ergo, their names are kept anonymous. And I don't blame them for wanting it that way.