EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Citizens United 2.0 and the 'Regressive Era of Money in Politics'
Campaign fundraisers are already at work on the upcoming presidential election—Obama 2012 is soliciting donations, and Republican candidates like Tim Pawlenty are spending more time meeting donors than voters.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United, which allowed unlimited corporate expenditures on political advocacy efforts, has vastly improved the fundraising abilities of groups like American Crossroads. Outside groups like Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, which spent $50 million on the recent midterm elections, are also no doubt revving up the money machine. Crossroads and similar groups with benign names like Americans for Job Security, FreedomWorks, and yes, the US Chamber of Commerce will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the presidential race.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United, which allowed unlimited corporate expenditures on political advocacy efforts, has vastly improved the fundraising abilities of groups like American Crossroads. (Karl Rove has admitted this). Corporations can funnel unlimited money into an outfit like American Crossroads, and then let it do the dirty work of conceiving, producing, and airing advertisements that bash or support a chosen candidate.
What Citizen’s United does not allow the corporation to do, however, is contribute money directly to candidates. That remained illegal—until, perhaps, now. Last week, in a decision that received scant media attention, a Reagan-appointed federal judge in Virginia ruled that campaign finance laws banning corporations from direct contributions to candidates are unconstitutional.
US District Judge James Cacheris extended the logic of Citizen’s United to reach his decision. "(F)or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech," he wrote in his 52-page opinion. "Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within (the law's) limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing."
The case at hand was not driven by canny operatives in an attempt to further loosen campaign finance laws. Cacheris was presiding over a case brought by the federal government against two former officials at the Galen Capital Group, who are charged with making direct, illegal corporate contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2006 Senate campaign and 2008 presidential campaign. The two men had their employees make donations and then reimbursing them directly.
The public defender in the case argued that "[c]orporate political speech can now be regulated, only to the same extent as the speech of individuals or other speakers… That is because Citizens United establishes that there can be no distinction between corporate and other speakers in the regulation of political speech."
This argument has been tried once before in the wake of Citizen’s United, but a Minnesota judge rejected it earlier this month. Cacheris did not.
Fred Werthemier of Democracy 21, a campaign finance group, said Cacheris went too far in defining the outer limits of Citizens United. He cited the 2003 Supreme Court decision Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, which explicitly upheld the constitutionality of direct corporate contributions, and language in the Citizen’s United decision that makes it clear the justices were only dealing with expenditures, not direct contributions. “This leaves the Beaumont decision standing as existing Supreme Court doctrine, a decision that the district court judge conveniently ignores,” he said. Other legal experts have said they expect the decision to be overturned.
Even if the Supreme Court upholds Cacheris’ opinion, however, proponents argue the immediate impact won’t be enormous. Corporations could make direct contributions to candidates but would still have to abide by donation limits of $2,500 per candidate per election. "This finding hardly gives corporations a blank check,” Cacheris wrote in his opinion.
Perhaps not—but one possible loophole is that individuals or business concerns could create or use an unlimited number of corporations, and thus make essentially unlimited contributions directly to candidates.
It’s also dangerous for Cacheris’ ruling to become law because contribution limits might eventually be swept away by post-Citizens United logic. If donations are equal to free speech, for both corporations and individuals, can those donations then be limited? There are already cases winding their way through the courts saying no.
Beyond the immediate, pernicious effect of Citizen’s United, this is what campaign finance experts have been worried about—a slippery legal slope that would soon allow unlimited spending on everything related to democratic elections. Says People for the American Way: “[Citizens United] was just the beginning of what, without correction, may be a new regressive era of money in politics.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
20 Comments so far
Show AllFor about the 100th time I've said this, American citizens are not bound by the "Citizens" decision or any other Court decision to cede political power to the forces of wealth. No one can "buy" you unless you consent to be "bought," that is just existentialist philosophy 101. No lurid 4-color postcards attacking the integrity of a political opponent does anything to me except make me less likely to support the perpetrators of the attack ad. Even the more genteel messages of bathing candidates in the mother pie and applehood virtues of "American values" don't dissuade me from asking how much someone is paying to create expensive TV ads that invite me to witness this "bath." There's a thing called consumer resistance (don't buy if you don't like), has anyone heard of it? There's such a thing as making a political opponent's campaign contributions and expenditures a liability rather than an asset, has anyone thought of it? Has anyone thought that, as free human beings, we have the power to say "no" to political manipulation by the moneyed powers? Well yes, but, but, but...bring on the buts, I'd love the chance for a little rebuttal.
You are absolutely correct. I often read comments here about how it isn't really the American sheeple's fault that they voted for Obama or (insert name of D or R corporate whore here), or that they don't know what is really going on with their government, or that they are unaware of this and that, etc, etc., because it is the MSM's propaganda that is so purposefully deceiving. What a lame cop-out. The bottom line is the buck stops with each one of us. If we are uninformed on an issue, it is OUR fault. If we swallow the kool-aid offered to us by Fox or the rest of the MSM, it is OUR fault. The truth is right there for us to see - on any and all issues - as we here on CD know quite well. Most of us here on CD have turned off the TV and seek our news from other sources, because we see the bullshit for what it is in the American media.
If tens of millions of Americans are too lazy or apathetic or - sorry - stupid to find the truth, that is their problem. Difficult times call for extra effort. If our government is being hijacked by the Oligarchy - which it is - and turning into a Plutocratic fascist state - which it also is - then that means sitting on your lazy ass and just swallowing whatever the MSM beams into your living room is not enough. You get the government you deserve.
Thanks for bringing this up, phoenix.
Demonstorm, thanks for your comment, glad to hear from someone on the same wave length with myself about the "powerlessness" of people to take their affairs into their "own hands." For further on this topic, I refer you or similarly-minded people to the following:
http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/2010/02/21/apres-citizens-le-deluge-part-one-cursing-the-darkness/ and
http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/2010/02/24/apres-citizens-le-deluge-part-two-putting-on-the-armour-of-light/
You could contact the author of the above pieces if you wanted to become involved in more dialogue and action in regard to reclaiming the power of the people from the grasp of the plutocracy.
will check out the site you suggested however it looks to me that talk is what we do best action isn't happening....
Your position amounts to blaming Americans for being the victims of political manipulation, while letting the manipulators off the hook. It's like saying that rape and armed robbery should not be considered crimes because it's really the fault of the victims for not being better prepared and for failing to fend off their attackers.
It is right, even a duty, to admonish people to be wary of political manipulation. We should do that in whichever ways we believe will do the most good, even if it's telling them "Wake the fork up!". But we should also remember that people aren't gullible on purpose. It's neither fair nor constructive to blame them for things they can't help. On the other hand, the political manipulators do what they do willfully and with bad intent. They deserve the real blame.
The single biggest thing wrong with the US political system is that money is so easily able to buy power. Corporations have much more money than other entities so they have bought our government and dumped our democracy. There can be no permanent solution to any of the big issues our country faces until that fundamental problem is fixed. Adopting the attitude that "it's just the way things are" amounts to throwing in the towel.
The way to fix the problem is to eliminate the channels through which money controls policy. Eliminating all political donations and instituting strict public campaign financing would help. Ending all behind the scenes lobbying, making Obama's closed-door meetings with industry leaders an impeachable offense, and forcing corporations and industry groups to fork over a dollar to the public sector for every dollar they spend on lobbyists would help. Removing the revolving doors between government and business would help. Last but not least, a drastic increase in government transparency would do wonders. Politicians wouldn't dare do many of the things they do if they knew we were watching them.
The corporate media are perhaps the biggest impediment to the realization of healthy democracy in the USA. There's no way to stop them through legislation, and their role as managers of public perception rather than disseminators of truth is intrinsic to the corporate media model. It's an area where waking people up to their own credulity and showing them the superiority of independent media seems the only way.
Been there, done that. Phoenix who then should I vote for? The candidates on my ballots, for far too long, are the choice between Paid Whore#1 or Paid Whore #2. I rarely watch TV so I am not affected greatly by the absurd political ads they run. I may not be bought but everyone I am allowed ot vote for is. Makes for shitty representative governance.
Define Freedom: Last I heard, you are "allowed to vote for" any candidate whose name appears on a ballot. If PW #1 and PW #2 are the only ones appearing on that ballot, it's because you and other like-minded voters haven't made the effort to get decent people on the ballot; and I'm willing to bet that many despairing voters like yourself would not vote for such a candidate if he/she DID appear on the ballot, because that candidate was not "electable" and you had to vote whichever between 1 and 2 was the lesser whore (evil). You can give yourself excuses til the cows come home, but your despair is exactly what the plutocratic dominance of our system feeds upon.
You are also allowed to write in any name you choose, whether they are on the ballot or not. So yes, you can vote your conscience and principals and give a big middle finger to the rigged game that our two-party system is. Will your write-in win? Probably not. But winning isn't the point, when both choices - R and D - on the ballot are an automatic win for the corporate Plutocracy that paid for them, and an automatic loss for democracy.
So write in who you feel best represents your values and your principals. You aren't wasting your vote, and you aren't selling out to the Plutocracy.
Why not just cut out the middle-man and let citizens auction off their votes on E-bay?
Nice idea, but I don't think our votes matter that much any more. Before long they'll probably be elected - or selected, based on the dollar amounts they manage to raise, from the prez on down.
I have never been impressed or taken in by political ads, and have seen a great many in my life. But I have to say that I finally saw one in 2008, in the middle of unbelievably vile ads, that blew me away. I wished everyone in the country could see it as an example of what a political ad should be. If I hadn't already had a high regard for this person and his voting record (maybe not 100% as I might have voted, but still very good), and planned to vote for him, this ad would have hooked me.
He's Senator Ron Wyden, OR. His ad didn't say anything about his apponent. It was filled with scenes of the beauty of Oregon, and told of all that he'd done for the state and those of us living here. It was truely a fantastic ad.
shadre, that's all to the good, campaign ads that don't attack opponents. But still, as I suggested in my original post, I'd want to examine the campaign funding of the candidate who sent out this pretty Oregon scenery. Ron Wyden in 2010 (when he was last elected) collected $3.75 million in campaign contributions, and I doubt that any opponent spent anywhere near that amount. His largest contributor was Nike, not exactly a model corporate citizen. Just so's you know, Open Secrets has this run-down on Wyden's contributions. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00007724&cycle=2010
Politicians are completely irrelevant in matters of domestic concern. They have reduced themselves to the level of a sport and our vote is nothing but an indication of what team we are on. This is a game called democracy and there are only two teams that ever make it on a fair field of play. Red team and blue team. The fans pay money to support their team, the game is politics and the goal is to see which side can garnish more votes. Votes are scored by out double speaking each other. As far as games go, it is as good as the next. I voted for Nader last presidential election season and since he did not get on the field, I knew he would never get a fair chance to represent me. I'm realizing that regardless of who wins the game, they are not taking care of the citizens of the country we live in, it is far too complicated with greed for that to occur any more. But the fans go home and take care of themselves and their neighbor all the same and pretend that the games of politics are really a government for us to count on.
Politics is just a game and real life is not played with any governmental official anymore, it is played by the citizens alone. The governmental officials are busy negotiating with each other in high stakes investments and or vacationing and or partying and or doing this with other officials in other countries with varying degrees of the same dynamic.
The people remain active in spite of this huge farce, the people keep living and loving and taking care of each other. When will we realize that this is the real state of affairs??? We don't need to pretend we have no government and care for ourselves all the same, we can just realize we have no government and that we care for ourselves all the same. Governing is the biggest myth of all, like God. Governments don't exist in reality, just people taking care of themselves and doing good or bad in that.
I never saw so many true believers in "democracy" and "votes" before here. what's up people/? did you forget you are living in a plutocracy? stop telling us it's our fault. we were taken over by a capitalist junta a long time ago. a military capitalist junta. we are living in Occupied USA.
in principle i suppose we could mount a revolution- but holy moly- look at the weaponry they can bring against us! who can fight that with shovels and broom handles?
we need to find something else to do that does not depend upon the illusion of "democratic elections" or indeed any of the other lies they taught us in our civics books.
When your bottom line is "we need to find something else to do" and there's not an inkling of "something else" that would be more effective than the shovels and broomsticks of our refusal to support over-funded candidates, you really leave us with a "woe is us," we are helpless message. Enjoy that one if it makes you "feel better."
Who needs politicians when we can have direct democracy?
In America today it would be fairly easy to create an independent web site or even create a common dreams link that would allow people to register their vote not only on candidates but also on important matters. We can keep track of our selves. We don't need a government that is in all sense and purpose no longer serves us telling us who won, or what the public consensus is. We can do this work ourselves and should do this work ourselves. We can do for ourselves what the government is not and we are already doing so. How else can you explain the fact that while we know they are stealing from us and spending a majority of our money on wars without our consent, etc, somehow all across the country we are still intact as a people? It is not mostly with them it is so, it is mostly without them that it is so. The fact seems to be that while they misuse our money that they take from us in taxes, we have enough left over to survive with what is left. If we realize we don't need them and they are just a burden at this point, we can simply refuse any of their services and start taking care of ourselves without them. Again, aren't we mostly doing this already? Will they even care? They can keep running their wars and giving each other money and etc. We just don't need them anymore, they are like a spouse who is addicted to gambling and get's into fights at the bar every night. At a certain point it is time to divorce and realize how much better off you will be without that burden.
Every one of the comments so far has ignored the gorilla. Of course if we are to stupid or lazy to pay attention to the people running our nation or we are so myopic as to not recognise other worries but gay marrage and the cost of gas we deserve what we get from Washington. But, if we do our due dilligence and make an informed decision, vote for a winning cantidate and they hie themselves off to the capital and the next time we hear from them is before the next election than whose fault is it? Our representitives are more concerned with the next election than they are with campaign promises. Ninty percent of the electorate has no idea as to how their representitives are voting and most do not have a clue as to how to find out.
The answer is not a third party which will become the same as the others in short order, What is essential for the continuance of our form of government is public finanancing of campaigns. No monitary or payment in kind allowed. An individual can only support a cantidate by personally volunteering for service. If payed by a third party then all concerned are libal to a felony conviction of campaign fraud with manditory state or federal prison terms. These rules apply to both unions and corporations who are banned from any effort to control their members or employees actions in regard to elections.
There is a lot of handwringing about wanting my country back but the real issue is the people's regaining control of our legislatures.
namora, In "principle" I'm with you, with regulation on campaign financing and/or public financing, etc. Trouble in practice is that it depends on the "legislatures" which "the people" seek to control instituting the "regulations" without which such a system couldn't work. How can you get these governments, composed of men and women elected under current corrupt conditions, to legislate non-corrupt or "clean" elections? My idea, expressed in the lead posting on this string, is that the recovery of popular control of our government has to begin with acts of "consumer resistance" to the money purchase of our votes. You can have millions of dollars of campaign funding but you can't buy offices for your candidates if voters aren't giving their votes to those who seek to buy them. With sources of public information like Open Secrets now available to any voter with access to a computer, voters can and should find out who has collected funding in what amounts and from what sources and make candidates over-funded from special interests pay (in lost votes) for their reliance on funds that is sure to guarantee that as officeholders they will not be "public servants" but rather the servants of those who funded them. If this sounds like too much burden on the lone voter, think of this as the heart of any populist campaign, conducted by (I agree) un-paid volunteers. Now I agree that it will still "cost something" to get out the word to other voters about the plutocratic nature of one's opponents, but not nearly the expenses incurred in noisy tv ads and noxious screaming allegations in scurrilous pieces of campaign "literature." Also the very novelty of candidates who campaign in this way can garner "unearned media" (not paid for) by virtue of this kind of campaigning being "news" in campaigns in which voters are burned out on over-exposure to expensive forms of campaigning. Populist campaigning against plutocratic opponents is not easy, but I fervently believe it's the only way to break through the Catch 22 that you can't rely on corruptly-elected officials to set up non-corrupt electoral systems. Honesty just literally begins "at home."
Some skilled graphic artist should go ahead and illustrate the truth; which I have heard described here at CD--Show a photo of Congress and also the President, each one of them sporting the logos of the corporations that sponsor them-like Nascar drivers. It would be a good visual and might wake some people up. We are not conspiracy theorists, and the sooner the average voter realizes how broken the system really is, and how much the "representatives" represent their sponsors. Truth in advertising is a good way to start. Such a visual may help to drive the point home. I really think this might help people see the root of our overwhelming problems, not just for the USA, but the entire globe upon which we throw our weight around.
I am not sure if there is a chance that voting will yield any candidate who will actually represent the people, and if we did get one, what could he/she actually do? We need a bunch of them.
Still looking and hoping. Any artists? I wish I knew who to credit with this idea.