The populist tone of President Obama's State of the Union speech was no surprise; since he went to Kansas last month to link his presidency to the "new nationalism" of Theodore Roosevelt, it has been clear that the president will seek reelection by casting himself as a champion of economic fairness.
Bully for him, as TR might say, and even better for the country if he can capture a bit of Roosevelt's energy and passion. We could use both those qualities in a president these days, as heirs of the corporate titans Roosevelt battled a century ago hold sway over Washington.
But watching Obama's address, I was struck by his failure to strike at the heart of what's wrong -- the enormous sums of money that special interests, particularly big corporations, have invested to buy our elections and the power that goes with them.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, in Citizens United and a string of other decisions, corporate and other special interest dollars now flow virtually unimpeded through our political system. The court's declaration that corporations are people and enjoy the same free speech rights most of us thought were reserved to individuals has put big money in control.
In Washington and most state capitals, political leaders have long understood that deep-pocketed donors can make and break their careers; now "SuperPACs," fueled by anonymously-donated corporate money, are allowing those politicians to keep their hands clean while their friends do the dirty work of tearing down their political opponents.
There are several ways to attack this stranglehold on our democracy; full disclosure of corporate contributions would help, and so would public financing of our elections. The president's call for a bill to stop the bundling of campaign contributions by lobbyists is another positive step, as is his call for a ban on insider trading by members of Congress.
But to really put people back in charge, we must force passage of a constitutional amendment that will permit sensible controls on corporate political spending.
An array of organizations and some courageous elected officials are pushing a variety of amendment proposals. All have merit, and polls suggest an amendment would have strong public support, but I'm convinced that none will move forward until voters demand it.
That's why Common Cause has launched Amend2012, a campaign to help voters speak where they're sure to be heard -- at the ballot box. We want to give voters the tools to put a voter initiative or referendum question on the ballot in as many states as possible so that the people can instruct their representatives and senators to pass an amendment and submit it to the states for ratification.
We understand that this is a heavy lift; amending the Constitution isn't easy and it shouldn't be. We may only get on the ballot in a few states this year and we know that it will take several years to get a vote in every state.
But we've made a start and we're determined to see it through. If the president and his Republican adversaries truly are serious about change in Washington, they'll join us.
Follow Bob Edgar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BobEdgarCC
 |
 |
|
| 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 |
A bit less dismay, if you please. Of course he didn't "strike at the heart of what's wrong". In 2008, Senator McCain accepted public financing of his (R) election campaign. Senator Obama 'opted out' of public financing and raised massive amounts of money for his (D) election campaign. One of Obama's advisors has mentioned raising a BILLION dollars for the '12 campaign.
I have voiced respect for President Obama when he's done right. On this topic, he IS the problem. Write to President Obama and demand that if the Republican nominee accepts public campaign financing, that he also accept public campaign financing.
Wait and see what kind of response you get.
I want to see a bill include all these things. They could call it "Elections for the People" Bill. But to make a slight change, I don't want to sensible controls on corporate election spending. I want to see NO corporate spending on elections. To take it a step further, I don't want unions to spend anything or non-profits. Only individual citizens should be able to contribute, and it should be a a sensible limit like $500.
Let's see if President Obama participates in public financing for the '12 campaign.
And to your point, even McCain eventually tried to withdrew from public financing through the Federal Election Commission because he saw it was disadvantageous.
As long as Citizens United is the law of the land, I doubt that ANYONE is going to rely on public financing. That's a death wish. Until there is a constitutional amendment repealing Citizens United, this country will be trapped in a money-laden death pit. So again, I hope that Congress or the next batch will implement a law requesting:
- full disclosure of corporate contributiÂons
- public financing of our elections.Â
- End to the bundling of campaign contributiÂons by lobbyists
- ban on insider trading by members of Congress
- Repeal of Citizens United (I personally like Move to Amend's proposed amendment)
Unfortunately, they did not get the chance to pass as many bills as they would have liked during the past four years due to 1) a record number of filibusters by republicans, 2) luke-warm democrats in Congress, and 3) the impatience of the People who voted in waves of unintelligent, delusional Tea Party republicans to Congress. These past two years, the number of bills even geared towards helping the middle and lower class dramatically fell because obstructionist Congresspeople were submitting bills about nonsensical social issues like gay marriage and abortion. They didn't even have the common sense to raise our debt ceiling on debt we had already accrued. So, how can you really blame this mess all on Obama?
If you want to see change, then give Obama a Congress he can actually work with. Don't whine and trash the President. Look at and hold accountable the people who are standing in the way of him and other politicians who are trying to make our society better.
Then you must have missed Obama's past state of the Union where he berated none other than several of the judicial farces on the Supreme Court who cast the ill-fated, deciding votes in treasonous (IMHO), Citizens United, who came there, it seemed, only to lord their immutable status over the Executive Branch ( for all their detached status from justice, precedent, human service, or sudden fondness for corporations could confer on that decidedly, human and democratic occasion).
To jab at SCOTUS further would have been unproductive, if not un-presidential, (extra-SCOTUS measures have already been undertaken ) besides, the President ‘took it up a notch’ by lambasting congressional, ‘insider trading;’ that is to say, profiting from having privlidged, foreknowledge of monetary outcomes, and secret machinations of congress or doing the bidding of highest paying lobbyists, over that of voters--both likely end-games to Citizen’s United.
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret. It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top
Much More: great read
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
In the meantime- have you noticed the pose Obama has surrounded himself since day one.
BO=BS