Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democrats Move to Stem Corporate Political Cash
WASHINGTON - Democrats in Congress plan to unveil tough proposals this week to counter a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts on elections.
President Barack Obama, who took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the ruling in his State of the Union address in January, has warned it will give corporations and special interest groups undue influence in elections.
The bill would require the leaders of corporations, unions and other groups to put their names on television ads and would ban election spending by government contractors, companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership and recipients of taxpayer-funded bailout money.
"It is about restoring the proper balance. Certainly special interests have a right to be heard. The problem is when special interest voices drown out the voices of average Americans," a senior White House official told Reuters.
Democratic aides said they hoped to introduce the measure this week but acknowledged they face hurdles that could delay it becoming law until after congressional elections in November, when Republicans hope to shrink Democrats' majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The bill, if it is passed, is also likely to face legal challenges in the courts as opponents probe for loopholes to circumvent the spending restrictions. The country's biggest business group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, signaled on Friday it would fight it.
"No matter what text you choose, if you're clear enough there is always a way around it, and if you try to be spongy with it to make sure there is no way around it, then it is really not clear the court will uphold it," said Joseph Birkenstock, a registered lobbyist and partner at Caplin & Drysdale in Washington.
White House officials have been working closely with Democratic lawmakers since Obama's State of the Union address to craft legislation.
"The framework is a strong one. We are pleased to be working with the Hill to answer the president's call for prompt action," the White House official said, when asked whether Obama backed the bill due to be introduced this week.
The move is co-sponsored by Representatives Chris van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Mike Castle, a Republican.
REPUBLICAN SUPPORT EXPECTED
In the 2008 election cycle, nearly $6 billion was spent on all federal campaigns, including more than $1 billion from corporate political action committees, trade associations, executives and lobbyists.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on January 21 said long-standing campaign finance limits violated the constitutional free-speech rights of corporations.
Despite Republican leaders having expressed support for the court's decision, the White House official said the administration was confident "there will be multiple Republicans who will embrace this" proposed legislation.
While Obama has made the legislation a top priority, it faces an uphill climb in Congress to become law.
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer has sought to craft legislation similar to that of van Hollen and Castle but has had difficulty finding a Republican co-sponsor.
Without bipartisan support, such legislation would likely fail to clear a Senate Republican procedural roadblock to allow debate on the bill. Democrats control 59 votes in the 100-member Senate, but 60 are needed to move to debate.
With Congress busy on several fronts, including financial reform and a possible Supreme Court confirmation battle, the bill is not expected to get far this year.
The bill's language on foreign companies is already being challenged by groups such as the Organization for International Investment, a trade association that represents U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad.
"It is a faulty premise to think of multinationals as being of any particular country or another," said Birkenstock, a lobbyist for OFII. "It's kind of pointless to pretend that 18 percent makes you American but that 22 percent makes you not American."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce slammed the bill as an attempt to "hijack the political playing field."
"We will fight any and all attempts to muzzle and or demonize independent voices from the election discussion," said chamber president and CEO Thomas Donohue.
The Center for Competitive Politics, a think tank that opposes campaign finance limitations, said it expected legal challenges to test any ban on government contractors and a proposed requirement that advocacy groups set up separate political broadcast accounts.
Additional reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Xavier Briand.
36 Comments so far
Show All"We will fight any and all attempts to muzzle and or demonize independent voices from the election discussion," said chamber president and CEO Thomas Donohue.
That is a remarkably hypocritical quote coming from the CEO of the Amerikkkan Chamber of Commerce.
Corporations now have the right to be put in "free speech zones" just like people.
An interesting idea. Given the Federal Government allocates the Radio/TV and Cable spectrum under the FCC I am sure they could bar all political advertising on all stations barring one or two "Free speech zones" which are dedicated exclusively to Coprorate political spending.
One Cable Channel exclusively Political. One Radio Channel in a given area. One Broadcast TV channel.
Now much like "Free speech zones" no one would really see these "Political Statements" but was that not the point when Bush created them for the people?
Hypocritical indeed. "Independent voices" sounds sooo in the spirit of democracy!
We (and especially organizations like the ACLU and Human Rights Watch) are long, long overdue in arriving at the realization that so-called "freedom of speech" is really no different than so-called "economic freedom". Just like the role of wealth and ownership of the mean of production in "economic freedom" one only has "freedom of speech" to the extent that one owns the "means of speech" notably the very capital-intensive broadcast and print media. The internet does not replace this, because the person browsing on the internet is still reliant on the distorted and filtered "news" fed into him first by the ordinary mass media - which is poised to take over control of internet bandwidth too.
And at any rate, even under net neutrality, maintaining a web site is not exactly cheap either. Guess it is time to send another contribution to CD.
Corporate "personhood" must be abolished as a threat to true democracy. Unless and until that happens, endless legal wrangling about infringement of corporations' "right" to "free speech" will waste time and billions of dollars while our sham democracy, now an auction, deteriorates further into the "inverted totalitarianism" described by Sheldon S. Wolin in Democracy Incorporated.
There are many different ways to eliminate corporate personhood.
Yes, corporate personhood is the heart of the matter. Corporations are "its," not people - that's just common sense. The legal basis that corporations have real human rights actually has come entirely from the judicial branch. They've simply made up the law.
A Web site that goes into the details is the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD):
http://www.poclad.org/
Corporations now have superhuman powers. They write the laws. You can sue them, but they have oodles of cash and never die. Constitutional restrictions don't apply to corporations.
That being said, the Dem Party has been the servant of corporations for many years. So expect this legislation to go nowhere.
-TIA
The United States of America is a corporation:
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0
If the Corporatist Democrats think they are winning support with these theatrics and posturings before the now empty barn they have another thing coming.
At most they may be impressing some of the press and a few political groupies, as well as themselves.
There are a huge number of Americans unemployed and the economy is in collapse. Meanwhile the wars continue.
Eugene, I understand what you are saying. People are sick of both parties because of the smoke and mirrors, false pride in thinking they are better than the rest of us, and the attitude of it isn’t our problem when it is all of our problems because it effects all of us as one nation.
Our nation has fallen into quicksand and if we don’t pull ourselves out soon we will die. We will have passed the point of no return and people will be really angry then. It just seems like people in elected office from both parties have lost touch with the American people and they know longer know what is really going on in this country, but believe the lies because they don’t want to know the truth. Maybe they know the truth but really don’t care what is happening? I have never been able to understand the ” IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM” mindset.
Both parties are the problem and it is going to take us Americans doing what the Brits are doing and vote the Liberal Democrat; which I believe would be like the Progressive in America. Both Labor and Conservative are behind; because I believe that the British people know that both parties are corrupt and they need to bring a whole new party into power. Progressives in America are going to have to start supporting the Green Party and really work hard to free us from the shakels that have been attached to our legs. Our ancestors and future generations of Americans deserve this generation keeping this country as one union while it is our turn at the helm. Where is this American spirit we used to have as a nation?
I listened to the interview yesterday on Ring of Fire as they were talking about this Bill. I support this Bill as I have been speaking out for real election campaign reform and open debates for years. Yet, because the corporate parties have corrupted our political system, I don’t think this Bill will ever become Law. I would be very surprised if we can achieve real election campaign reform that takes all corporate money out of the equation and totally change the way we do things here.
As you say the wars continue, the political corruption continues, we keep on spending money we don’t have as a nation and are getting further and further into a debt we can’t afford. We are selling away the future for our children. We are truly at a crossroads and our future will depend on if enough Americans love t his country enough to fight to save her from the sucide path she is on.
There are two parties in the duopoly--Right (Democrat) and Even More Right (Republican).
They are both Corporatist, Fascist and Imperialist.
They are also both now incompetent to the point of absurdity.
"Progressives in America are going to have to start supporting the Green Party and really work hard to free us from the shakels that have been attached to our legs."
I assume you meant "shackles", but it occurs to me that "shekels" would fit just as well!
Add to the corporate cash, the nice corporate lobby framing of the issue brought to us by Reuters.
"It will restore the proper balance"
No it won't....besides the Dems had a chance to get
this done many times before the Supreme Court decision.
They knew exactly when that was coming to docket and knew
before hand just what the decision would be.
The balance has been tipped for at least four decades,
Common Cause tried like hell for years to get it in balance
and couldn't even when they were recieved a lot of donations
and had the endorsements of many.
Money and power will always win in the end. The worst thing is that they drive the sheep over the cliff ahead of them. The best thing is we can call it capitalism.
"Money and power will always win in the end."
That is an essential part of the mythos that keeps the naive acceding to "money" and "power."
How about a new "Fairness Doctrine"? Allow unlimited spending on political ads, *but* require television and other public airwave media to balance those ads with ads for opposing viewpoints costing *only whatever the opposition groups can afford*, i.e., free if necessary. The media will quickly realize that if they take on a lot of ads by big spenders, they're going to have to cut their profits by hosting those cheaper opposition ads. The media may limit overall political advertising themselves because of reduced revenue prospects, and the results should be in better balance.
If the public is so gullible that public opinion can be changed by the words that come out of a politician’s mouth, then the purpose of this world is to prove the harm in it. So be it.
When it all comes down to it, everybody can only take the information they can find, and hope it's right. It's scary to think of it, but how many times did we believe we had the right information, only to realize that we had been fed lies? No one that I speak to can make up their minds about the president other than he's "good", "bad", or "ruining/helping the economy". Just now, I read that the Democrats have proposed a plan to limit ad spending. (I'm hoping this is an earnest attempt for the American people.) But how will it change anything if we don't agree to do SOMETHING? When we assume to know what we're doing, can we take a step forward and help ourselves, or are we just dropping another rock in the ocean? Our only option is to try, and keep learning what we can, I guess. If we don't do anything, then who are we leaving up to changing current circumstances?
As Zizek says somewhere, "Leftists" keep trying to have a revolution without having a revolution.
Geezus, even the Right Wing Capitalist Paulistas and Teabaggers have got in on the act (with Corporate sponsorship).
Actually the only thing revolutionary the US has seen since the 60's is the Neo-Cons taking over the Federal Government from the top under Bush and Cheney, also with Corporate sponsorship, and with the Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists as their foot soldiers.
i AGREE. VERY well-put.
the USA is incapable of revolution - at least in the classic sense of political upheaval by the masses to overturn what oppressive or unjust governance there is. americans do not have that kind of courage, imo. that is why in the USA the concept of "reform" is deeply embedded. it's about the FARTHEST the americans will go, even if they probably, for a long time, have been among the people that have had the biggest reasons to go that far. they STILL believe the "system works somehow"...but that is because of their own national consciousness' attachment to "OUR BIG BOSS: our supernationalistic capitalism" (general smedley butler, us Marines, 1933) .
"revolution" in american terms is having to give up "my MTV" and such things....
I think we should all obtain papers of incorporation. If persons can become corporations, then we can have corporate personhood representing persons. I can sell you 49 % of my incorporated shares in me, and I can buy shares in other people. This would mean that if the government comes after me for some infraction, they can only actually put 51 % of me in jail. you would have to do the other 49 % of my time. Neat huh?
I find myself watching more TV. Not politics or news, but programs like Nature, and murder expose's' seem to have more relevance than politics.
I only want to stay tuned enough to get the news of the collapse, "as soon as it happens."
There just does not seem to be any point in democratic government, anymore.
"It's kind of pointless to pretend that 18 percent makes you American but that 22 percent makes you not American."
Response: I agree, so lower the threshold so that if a corporation has any foreign ownership, election spending should be banned.
But surely Progressive, the basics in 101 tells us
that no corporation should be a dictator over its
employees, let alone a dictator over our great nation.
MECHANICS OF CAPITALISM
Since the beginning of civilization capitalists have ruled the world, from the merchant who traded worthless beads for pearls, to the multinational rich who now trade war materials for Middle East oil, those most skilful in the profession have ruled every nation, tribe and society on earth. And as the environment is about to expire in a convulsion because of it, let us analyze the mechanics within to see just what went wrong with it.
SPORTS MENTALITY
Identical to competition sports is capitalism in every respect. Identical to the Olympics in its glory, identical to pro-ball in the financial rewards that the best players may achieve. More then to self-actualize, to be the best you can be and all you can be, in the winner takes all mentality of capitalism, it’s the best that anyone can be, the best in all the world. Like the Wall Street executive we must appease with a multimillion dollar bonus or he will run off to the markets of Europe and compete against us, the undisputed master of some synthetic derivative package that only he can comprehend.
FORCED COMPETITION
But unlike sports where the best only compete in their big league and the little leagues are allowed to prosper and grow, in the grownup game of capitalism the little stores are forced to compete against merchant giants like Wal-Mart, most unwanted competition that is anything but fair, honest or sportsmen like. For Wal-Mart buys imported fruits and vegetables cheaper then American farmers came grow it, and sell stuff way below the price that small stores can from a wholesaler purchase it.
ACHIEVEMENT DICTATORSHIP
Ability to achieve is in direct proportion to the speed at which you can rationalize a problem and take corrective action. Some would call capitalism an intelligence dictatorship, some an ambition dictatorship, but to stay neutral on the issue, ability to achieve in capitalism is like sex-appeal, wealth and High Society breeding, it does pass from father to son.
For ability to achieve in capitalism depends on the brains to know, what you know, who you know and the capital and resources you can apply to the project. Most certainly not a fair playing field and no matter what kind of fake morality you are addicted to, capitalism is anything but honest, upright or good.
ULTIMATE CONCLUSION
From the start capitalism was imbedded in our democratic Republic, for example “All men are created equal” to the rich, all men deserve to be rich and all men deserve a no-regulation government that will give the best achievers a fast track to getting rich. For men of the intelligent middleclass feel they deserve membership in the Country Club, and the Country Club class feel they deserve to be in High Society. Comes now the corporate rich and they so high on capitalism, as to actually feel they truly deserve to terrorize the Middle East into trading oil for the most deadly war materials money can buy.
Truth_Light,
You wrote: "Since the beginning of civilization capitalists have ruled the world..."
If these are your own words, the I would strongly encourage you to read a basic economics textbook on the rise of capitalism as a natural outgrowth of the industrial revolution in Great Britain starting in the early 1700s. Without the invention of a practical steam engine that was first commercialized in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen there would have been no development of capitalism in Great Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Newcomen
The first great theoretician of capitalism as an economic system was Adam Smith whose "The Wealth of Nations" was published in 1776.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
The system that capitalism was conceived of to compete with on the matter of trade was an earlier system called mercantilism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchantilism
***
As to your statement that "capitalism is anything but honest, upright or good" I would have to say that Adam Smith, J.P. Morgan and Peter Drucker would not be nearly as cynical as you are because in their eras, capitalism was not nearly as corrupted as it is today.
What passes for "capitalism" today in America is an aberration, a corruption of the classic view of capitalism as a system to allocate resources to their highest and best use (see "comparative advantage" theory). What we have in America today is a Wall Street casino that is best desribed as a kleptocracy. This has nothing to do with classic capitalism, and everything to do with a rising sociopathy in our nation.
***
Some readers may find William Astore's musings on "Democratic Kleptocracy" to be of interest: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/LD22Dj03.html
Agent provocateur below. Simple.
Of course everyone must be a conformist like Eugene Costa, otherwise,
"He who speaks the truth breaks his own neck."
The great non conformist Hess
Getting facts correct helps: "Since the beginning of civilization capitalists have ruled the world...."
Care to provide any details?
What a waste of what seems to have been at some point considerable natural intelligence.
Funny you have not been band by now,
for all your posts are gibberish nonsense.
Never do you supply facts, always do you
demand that we give you more facts.
It is just a wild guess at this point: raised under an authoritarian Calvinist Protestant regime with strong Oedipal (OT) structure?
You write well enough, and cunningly enough, to conclude that it was a very bright child who was mentally abused, as so many children in the US are by an early age.
But even that may be a mask.
"At the beginning of civilization...."?
Are people forgetting that our President of'Hope and Change'kept Gates to oversee the Military Industrial Complex and Summers and Bernanke to oversee our Banking System.
I'd put it somewhat differntly. I see Bernanke and Geithner's principle role today is to make sure the cover-up of the crime of the millenia continues.
With the taxpayer owning 79% of A.I.G. it is absolutely outrageous that no demand or plea by Congress can get the correspondence between A.I.G. Financial Products and Goldman Sachs out into the light of day.
Recall that the taxpayer has been forced by the FRB and Treasury to provide over $180 Billion in taxpayer money to AIG, at least $12.4 Billion of which was simply a pass-through of taxpayer money from our wallets into the bonus pool at Goldman Sachs. [This transaction occurred about one year ago and after a brief flurry of recrimination was lost in the tide of corruption flowing on Wall Street.]
Why would they ever bit the hand that feeds them.
Bradley Bauerly
"It is a faulty premise to think of multinationals as being of any particular country or another," said Birkenstock, a lobbyist for OFII. "It's kind of pointless to pretend that 18 percent makes you American but that 22 percent makes you not American."
It's also "kind of pointless" for American taxpayers to be held captive by the "too-big-to-fail" multi-national banks and corporations that have absolutely no loyalty to the health and welfare of this nation.
"In 2009, the number of billionaires increased from 793 to 1,011, and their aggregate wealth increased by a stunning 50% - their aggregate wealth increased by 50% during the most devastating economic crisis since the Great Depression." - DeGraw
The faulty premise is that the American people need to go bankrupt to support a global financial elite that preys on our government puppets.