Usually, when some new political development is called "a threat to democracy," I consider it a bit of an exaggeration.
But I don't think the threat is exaggerated at all with regard to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that overturned decades of precedent controlling corporate money in political campaigns. This new ruling allows corporations to flood our political system with unlimited contributions, effectively drowning out any citizen's voice opposed to corporate interests.
I'm profoundly disappointed with this decision, and concerned about the impact this ruling will have on the quality of people we elect and the policies we enact. I'm also deeply concerned this will even further erode the confidence of Coloradans in our federal government at a time when we already feel like Washington is out of touch and run by politicians with no job experience outside elected office.
If you aren't sure we're facing a sea change, consider this: Barack Obama's remarkable campaign was built on millions of donations from individuals showing their support. But, with this ruling, all of those voices could have been drowned out with one, big, corporate check.
If we, as individuals, want to keep control of our democracy -- rather than have a government paid for by corporate interest checks -- then we have to fight back now and make sure our system reflects the belief that people, not corporations, control our democracy.
We all need to join together to find a way to stop this corporate interest boondoggle. If we want to keep control of our political system, then we have to fight back -- starting right now.
Follow Sen. Michael Bennet on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BennetForCO
-Benito Mussolini
The people, especially in California, can start this wave with a proposition on their next ballot. Will President Obama support this? It will certainly make him popular.
Voting on an issue after accepting a related financial contribution in most other situations is politely termed as 'conflict of interest'; and more truthfully as bribery. The later is also classified as a 'crime'.
The good guys don't stand a chance any more.
While you've not been doing The People's business for very long, and hold little responsibility yourself for the 'status quo' stench of corruption there, you should realize few progressives buy this decision by the Supreme Court will greatly change 'business-as-usual' in Washington, D.C. - or the integrity of those members that already accept lobbyist's 'bundles'.
Acknowledging a sea change may not help YOUR credibility with progressive Independents or more liberal Democratic voters either, in the end, to be another voice - also pretending the ability to buy lawmakers and write one's own industry's legislation - doesn't ALREADY exist. Time will tell...
I believe it's a mistake to play 'the game' any longer as it's always been played, but you will make your choice and then progressive voters in Colorado will decide - just as Massachusetts voters have. Why would you expect voters though, to continue sanctioning elections where the outcome changes NOTHING of consequence? Instead, the progressive voters will again turn to third parties or just stay home.
Please propose Law to Congress Criminalizing (felony level) Campaign Contribution 'Bundling':
"NOBODY may make contributions to a political candidate for another person, OR be given money by another for the purpose of increasing one's personal contributions, period, NO exceptions."
'Lobbying' as we know it, with ex-lawmakers and aides peddling their D.C. influence and contacts as legal 'bribery middle-men', would then itself have to 'change', or perhaps even ...cease to exist.
Giving that much power to entities who, by definition, value themselves over the common good, seems foolish and self-destructive.
make candidates sign legally binding pledges to outlaw contributions, ALL contributions, even the poor are citizens.
Corporations are not persons, they are legal fictions,
Money is not speech, it is Bribery.
one media outlet per owner.
mandate free air time and travel expenses for all candidates on the ballot.
Else learn to kneel before the Monarchy of the Rich, "Conserved" after 200 years of conservatism fighting democracy and the Enlightenment.
Wealth is non-linear: the More money you have, the more rapidly you can make money.
Big money already swamps total wealth of everyone else on the planet.
There is no contest.
Respectfully, the ruling doesn't threaten democracy. It does provide a new set of tools that can restore intellectual honesty to American political discourse and enable the public to elevate a cadre of left-liberal pols who (unlike mainstream Dems) have the fortitude and talent to bring down the right.
Indeed,Citizens United frees everyone (of all political persuasions) to pool their funds in specially chartered non-profit corporations for electioneering purposes. Not only most small donors but many well-heeled types (class traitors of FDR's ilk) "get" that our society has veered dangerously off course towards perilously excessive class stratification domestically and military adventurism abroad.
Once the CU ruling dust settles, I predict many of us can and will step up and very amply fund newly minted left-liberal electioneering non-profits to effectively spread the messages of third parties and their maverick candidates or populist Democratic insurgent challengers to corporate friendly Democratic incumbents.
Once such candidates or their supporters have the ability to spend the threshold sum (not small) required to run a dignified and effective campaign, the ability of one side or the other to spend money is the political equivalent of bombs that make the rubble bounce.
The Supreme Court has just administered an angioplasty to the American body politic's hardened arteries. Progressives now need to heed Joe Hill's advice and not mourn but rather to organize "one, two, many" electioneering non-profit corporations and take back America.
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
- Obama raised around $750 million for his presidential campaign.
- Exxon had more than $45 billion in profits in 2008.
That is just one oil company. Throw in BP, Chevron, Shell and entities such as Halliburton and Phlip Morris and you can see where this goes. Also it opens the door for foreign-owned companies to buy and promote US public officials. I couldn't even give my favorite Canadian politician a couple dollars because I was not a Canadian citizen, and you think it would be a good idea for a Venezuelan company (Citgo) to be allowed to use its money to influence an American election?
THINK!
The "little guy," or even a bigger guy supported by a lot of little guys doesn't have a ghost of a chance.
We simply differ. The late California pol Jesse Unruh said it best: "Money is the mother's milk of politics."
Newly-minted left-liberal electioneering non-profits will finally enable the right's thoroughly bad ideas to be resolutely countered in the civic and electoral marketplace by the left's very good ideas.
Whether so intended or not, Citizens United is a cure for the sclerosis to our body politic that has been caused by the worst-of-all-worlds limits on donations to individual candidates, complicated PAC rules and the hellish Orwellian FEC enforcement bureaucracy.
As to the potential "drowning out" problem, there is only so much bandwidth available to electioneers during election season. Only so many political ad slots on tv and radio, only so many websites and print media outlets to advertise on, only so many organizers to go door-to- door, only so many rallies and debates one can attend, etc.
(If broadcasters did dare auction off available commercial time during the final stages of a campaign to the highest bidder, in effect, allowing the message of rightist candidates to dominate the airwaves during the critical run up to election day, that would have to prevented "by any means necessary". Presumably legislation would suffice.)
Once there is enough money to effectively get a candidate's message out eloquently to the multitudes, it becomes a war of ideas and character of the competing candidates or cause's advocates. That is a fight real progressives can and will win.
Eric
My only hope is that this ruling by the Supreme Court will finally get congress to do something about campaign finance reform. I suggest you hurry on this Senator. When the next election cycle is completed, Democrats may well be in the minority again. I doubt the Republicans will be much interested in changing things much once they are back in power. Tax cuts for the rich shows their platform. Where do the Democrats stand on this issue?
Let me impart a secret to you, Sir. Congress, excepting the rare and almost always unwise instances in which it considers an individual [The most well-known recent one being that concerning a life-support...ed woman in Florida], always considers groups of individuals in political decisions. The group may be composed of conservatives, liberals, broccoli growers, GM employees or corporate board members, but it is a group and not an individual which informs deliberation and, ultimately, congressional votes.
Populist rhetoric, as opposed to intelligent comprehension, is amusing but produces little of lasting consequence.See More