After a raucous week of campaigning filled with vicious personal and political attacks, Republicans will go to the polls in South Carolina on Saturday. Saturday also marks the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The connection? This Republican primary is offering progressives the equivalent of a movie preview, but you don't want tickets to this show.
The voice over sounds something like this: "An incumbent President, who fights for working people, enters an election where his opponents believe corporations are people, and the rich are the only ones who are working hard. Corporate SuperPAC Studios is proud to mislead you and protect its wealthy donors from scrutiny this fall in: The Fight to Give More to Those Who Already Have the Most."
Social media may have been the hallmark of the 2008 campaign, but I fear 2012 will be the year of the SuperPAC. Instead of energizing the grassroots, SuperPACs get their fuel from anonymous wealthy donors. There are no limits on contributions or on the undue influence they can exert on elections.
Admittedly, we may not shed any tears as the SuperPACs proclaim Mitt Romney's delight at running companies into the ground and firing workers as a part of Bain Capital's corporate chop-shop, or Newt Gingrich's truly awful conservative heresy of sitting on a couch next to Minority Leader Pelosi to acknowledge the real danger posed by climate change. But we should care for two reasons. The first is that when this circular firing squad ends, the SuperPACs will start aiming at us. The second goes to the heart of our democracy: Unlimited SuperPAC spending violates the principle of one person, one vote. In other words, Citizens United has made restoring transparency and accountability to our electoral process a national emergency.
Many of us think of Watergate as the scandal that brought down a president, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. Do we want to return to the era when deep-pockets dominated the playing field, anonymously intimidating candidates and drowning out their messages? When anyone with the money can run misleading negative ads without knowing who's behind them?
I believe government is a legitimate check on unbridled corporate power and a guarantor of democratic processes. We must recapture it as an instrument of our common purpose. There are two things we can do to get back on track.
First, and I don't say this lightly, we need to go to the source and amend the Constitution. I am cosponsoring the bill that seems the most straightforward, first championed by Senator Fritz Hollings and now by Representative Marcy Kaptur in the House. H.J.Res. 8 would amend our Constitution to allow for limitations on contributions to and expenditures by individuals, candidates and political committees taking part in federal elections.
Secondly, as the author of the "Stand By Your Ad" disclosure requirement, which forces candidates to appear in their ads and claim responsibility for their content, I believe we must extend this requirement to entities newly empowered by the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling. I've introduced "Stand By Every Ad," which would require third party groups to both claim responsibility for their ads and reveal their top five donors in the ads themselves. If candidates have to appear in their ads and claim responsibility, CEOs should too.
"Stand By Every Ad" isn't a cure-all, but it would place responsibility where it belongs. The best proof of its likely effectiveness is how virulently Senator McConnell opposed the bill after we passed it in the last Congress as a part of the DISCLOSE Act. Republicans know where their bread is buttered, and they slammed the door shut on disclosure.
Money is not speech, and corporations are not people. The true measure of our success is the well-being of each American, not the wealthy's stock market payouts or corporate profit margins. Let's do everything we can to make sure 2012 is the year of the voter, not the SuperPAC.
Fahad Faruqui: 'Live your lives' Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Mitt Romney's Super PAC Stance Not Reflected In His Actions
Rick Santorum Accuses Pro-Mitt Romney Super PAC Of Lying ...
Pro-Romney super PAC keys on Santorum as Romney campaign ...
Rick Santorum to Mitt Romney on SuperPAC Attack Ads: 'Stop It ...
Rick Santorum Confronts Mitt Romney Over SuperPAC Ad At South ...
 |
 |
|
| 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 |
from http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php
It's Congress's total inability to address what Citizens United has unleashed, that is the REAL problem.
EVERYONE in Congress SAYS there's too much money with too much influence in politics today. Yet MOST of them, when they say it, are talking about the money that their opponents receive, not their own.
The ethical, the only REAL way, of addressing this issue is to "get the money out" of American politics.
All of it.............corporate, union, what ever.
We live in a country where every individual has but one vote, and is limited to a $2500 donation to the candidate of his choice.
Unfortunately that's not where it ends. By contributing to national committees, pacs, and miscellaneous and sundry other means, any individual can contribute up to $117,000 with no limits on what corporations or unions can "donate".
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" Why can we not accept the basic truism this phrase teaches us.
One person, one vote, one limited ($2,500) contribution (in total).
We can't have "equality" in our country, when the wealthy can buy undue representation. It really IS that simple.
If it weren't for corruption, something like this would already be the law of the land.
Personal opinions, you are entitled to your own.
You may not like what people spending the money are saying or that it takes money to spread what you are saying but money is speech.
So the question boils down to this. Do you want the government and politicians to determine who can speak and what can be said or individuals?
The problem is that the left is trying to write different rules for the rich vs the rest. They want to say this quantity of speach or money is acceptable vpbut one dollar more is criminal. That is not the way to write good law.
Politicians using their power to benefit special interests is the real problem. The solution is to limit the power the politicians control.
If anyone is highly motivated to make a political statement they can find the resources to do so. Communicating to a large audience is now cheaper than ever. There is also the use of time rather than money. Hoping holy motivated people can use their time to spread their message.
We are all equally but we are not equally motivated about politics.
the repubs..just are not interested in any meaningful reform if it hurts them...
and then we have the MSM..if it really wanted reform they would make it a headline day after day...
they dont ....so I doubt much will happen
Good luck!