EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Little Less Corporate Political Corruption
Obama is thinking about issuing an executive order that would mitigate some of the damage done to our democracy by the Supreme Court's dastardly Citizens United edict.
Come on, Obama, do it. Stand up, stand tall, stand firm. Yes, you can!
President Barack Obama is thinking about issuing an executive order that would mitigate some of the damage done to our democracy by the Supreme Court's dastardly Citizens United edict, which unleashes unlimited amounts of secret corporate cash to pervert America's elections. 
Photograph: Scott Lenger
Obama's idea is simply to require that those corporations trying to get federal contracts disclose all of their campaign donations for the previous two years, including money they launder through such front groups as the Chamber of Commerce.
This approach says to those giants who are sucking up billions of our tax dollars for endless war, the privatization of public services, etc.: You're still free to shove trainloads of your shareholders' money into congressional and presidential races, but — hey, just tell the public how much you're giving and to whom.
Neat. It would be a clean, direct, and effective reform — so, of course, the corporate powers and their apologists are squealing like stuck pigs. Steven Law, a Bush-Cheney operative who is now both a Wall Street Journal editorialist and the head of a secret corporate money fund, recently decried the very idea of public disclosure of contractor campaign contributions: "When I was in the executive branch," he sniffed, "mixing politics with procurement was called corruption."
Yes, Steve, and y'all were corruption experts. Perhaps you've forgotten about Halliburton, the Cheney-run corporation that helped put Bush in office and then snagged tens of billions in contracts, becoming the poster child of corrupt, no-bid procurement.
Come on, Obama, don't back down under pressure from these corporate sleazes — sign that disclosure order. If they're going to steal our elections, let's at least make them admit it.
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...
56 Comments so far
Show AllThinking about this is good. Issuing the order is what counts. We should all help push this since sometimes Obama seems a wee bit timid about doing the right thing.
He actually should do this....and can he issue an executive order making Elizabeth Warren the head of the Consumer Protection Agency? The Rethugs are doing everything in their power to prevent her appointment. Why can't the President appoint whom he wants...she's not a felon or an ideologue.....just an honest, hard working American who wants to help her fellow citizens.
Oh, I forgot....that's not allowed in this country, is it?
Wrong! Republicans pulled a technical "in session" thingy, to stop that very possibility.
You're right....those crafty little weasels are pulling a technical stunt to keep Obama from appointing her in recess.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/
They are afraid of her because she is brilliant, honest, uncorruptible, and will not back down in the face of bullying and threatening by the Rethugs. And she is totally devoted to making sure the American public does not get screwed over. The Rethuglicans are despicable human beings....I hope America wakes up in 2012 and sends as many of them home as possible. They are human waste.
Americans woke up in 2008 and sent the Repugs packing... and whatTF did they get for it? Sold out on Health Care and Financial reform, DoD increases, escalation in Afghanistan, the war's extension into Pakistan and Yemen, the incarceration of Brad Manning, being punked by Netenyahou and exoneration of torturers and war mongers. Amazing that they're not revved up to vote in Dems, huh?
No he can't. The republican goons just pulled a fast one. They have used a technicality to claim that the House is "still in session" (even though very few congresscritters actually have to show up) to thwart a recess appointment.
The fascist machine is on a roll.
At this point, a "little less corruption" won't cut it. The only thing that will save this country is some very public firing squads for several Wall Street tycoons. Considering that the "Justice" (LOL) Department and the pentagoons are in their pocket, I don't see this happening any time soon.
What prevents Obama from declaring that the House is, in fact, not in session and going ahead and appointing her anyway? Sure, the House could impeach him for such a "usurpation" of power, but the Senate would never convict.
If he doesn't do it, it's because he doesn't want to.
lol
meaningless
here we go again - jim is waiting for obummer to do the right thing
hmmmmmmmmmmmm...............
folks - aint gonna happen
by now i would hope that folks are beginning to understand the inconvenient truth about amerika's democracy - it is a control structure for the elites
"If you go back to the record of the Constitutional Convention, which took place in 1787, almost immediately after the end of the war, you see that they are already moving in another direction. James Madison -- who was the main framer, and one of the founding fathers who was most libertarian -- makes it very clear that the new constitutional system must be designed so as to insure that the government will, in his words "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and bar the way to anything like agrarian reform. The determination was made that America could not allow functioning democracy, since people would use their political power to attack the wealth of the minority of the opulent. Therefore, Madison argues, the country should be placed in the hands of the wealthier set of men, as he put it.
QUESTION: Isn't that erection of barriers to democracy woven through the entire history of the United States?
CHOMSKY: It goes back to the writing of the Constitution. They were pretty explicit. Madison saw a "danger" in democracy that was quite real and he responded to it. In fact, the "problem" was noticed a long time earlier. It's clear in Aristotle's Politics, the sort of founding book of political theory -- which is a very careful and thoughtful analysis of the notion of democracy. Aristotle recognizes that, for him, that democracy had to be a welfare state; it had to use public revenues to insure lasting prosperity for all and to insure equality. That goes right through the Enlightenment. Madison recognized that, if the overwhelming majority is poor, and if the democracy is a functioning one, then they'll use their electoral power to serve their own interest rather than the common good of all. Aristotle's solution was, "OK, eliminate poverty." Madison faced the same problem but his solution was the opposite: "Eliminate democracy."
noam chomsky from his own website
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19970303.htm
so jim is deluded - what else is new - hopey changey thingy - while he ignores the fact that his boy obummer is the biggest war monger since booboo natanbooboo
btw: this is for sioux rose
If you want to know where the true power center of the world lies, follow the money – cui bono. According to Global Finance magazine, as of 2010 the world’s five biggest banks are all based in Rothschild fiefdoms UK and France.
They are the French BNP ($3 trillion in assets), Royal Bank of Scotland ($2.7 trillion), the UK-based HSBC Holdings ($2.4 trillion), the French Credit Agricole ($2.2 trillion) and the British Barclays ($2.2 trillion).
In the US, a combination of deregulation and merger-mania has left four mega-banks ruling the financial roost. According to Global Finance, as of 2010 they are Bank of America ($2.2 trillion), JP Morgan Chase ($2 trillion), Citigroup ($1.9 trillion) and Wells Fargo ($1.25 trillion).
offered gently
Madison wanted to create a strong federal government because the one that existed in 1787 was disfunctional. The states acted independently and found it hard to agree on anything.
Madison felt that state legislators would likely cave in to demands from their constituents and do things such as print money, which would create inflation, and reduce the value of land (the principal component of wealth in the southern states, such as his - Virginia). So now we have polititicans caving in to the requests of the wealthy, instead of caving in to the requests of the masses. It seems that Madison et alia did their job well.
It is interesting that Madison felt so strongly about protecting the value of property from the actions of the states, that he tried to get the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to include a paragraph giving the newly created federal Congress the right to veto any law passed by any state legislature. It did not pass of course, which is good, because if it had the states would not have ratified the Constitution.
So what is it we are supposed to take away from your comment?
That Hightower is wrong to think Obama should sign and order for disclosure?
Or what?
MED: Thank you for "thinking" of me. I am not naive as per the influence of big money, or the banking cartels. However, just as WADOSY is a one-trick pony prepared to blame Israel for any and EVERY thing, the bankers are not the ONLY significant players in the calculus of global affairs. It's clear that back in the time of the crusades, the kings had to borrow $ from certain well-positioned persons in order to fund their wars. That is still the case. So what tends to form is a triumvirate among ostensible power-brokers, the military, those who profit from the machinery and mechanics OF war, and those who fund it. Peripheral interests, those whose philosophies (politica/economic & religious) benefit from conflict also figure into the force-field that makes the abhorrent into the new norm, and core of business as usual.
I don't think we can decouple money (mammon) from militarism (what I term Mars rules). I refer to this pair as the unholy marriage; and in my view, it's given rise to the bastard fruits of this dark tie... in a progeny revealed through: racism, ecocide, sexism, materialism, religion that advocates FOR war, and an economics based on usury/debt slavery in a race to the bottom in ALL things that matter.
Response?
"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule this Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777-1836)
This introductory quote to David Korten's book "Agenda for a New Economy" says it all. The same old money is still in control.
Military has always been controlled by old money and it is like any other business in that it's set up to be self-perpetuating ('Oh no! If we don't create reasons for our budget, they'll reduce it and I'll be out of a job!'). Privatization of military is so pervasive that Lockheed helps write the daily intelligence briefing.
The perversion of organized religion is old as dirt & I can't decide which of "Onward Christian Soldiers" or "Battle Hymn of the Republic" is my least favorite song ever.
As Siouxrose points out, the new norm is numbness to the extreme darkness of our controllers, numbness to devolution of all the values of "civilization," and numbness to the onrush of human-made climate change.
Remember "What the Thunder Said. . ."
Thank you, Peacemaker. You enhanced the points I laid out considerably. Nice work.
I think I have a hell-of-a-better idea than Hightower's about how to "mitigate" the influence of corporate money on elections. The "full disclosure" approach is not going to deter corporations from making those contributions. The idea is predicated on the presumption that corporations would somehow be shamed by such disclosures---as if they were not shameless when it comes to public awareness of their campaign contributions. And where it said that federal contracts would be denied to those making such disclosures?
The better idea is this. The essence of Citizens United is that corporations have the "same rights" as individuals to make whatever contributions they wish. But individuals do not have the right to make contributions in unlimited quantities. Corporations could by law be forbidden from making contributions in excess of relatively small levels like the $2500 limitation on indivdual contributions in a number of electoral contests.
In contrast with Hightower, I would not urge Obama to make the kind of
"disclosure" requirement that he describes. This would give him an opportunity to make a show gesture as a campaign finance reformer without endangering the billion dollars he expects to raise to buy himself another 4 years of the presidency. Come to think of it, though, this toothless gesture is about what Obama may indeed make, as it would be consistent with his track record of choosing appearance over substance when it comes to any area of reform.
MUCH better solution, which is why it isn't on the table for this crowd. Well stated though.
Since the1886, when the case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific the only right in the USA are property rights. Property rights supersede all the Constitutional rights for individuals Corporations have more right than persons born of woman. The persons born by the scotus are the only persons accorded rights.
Since the1886, when the case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific the only right in the USA are property rights. Property rights supersede all the Constitutional rights for individuals Corporations have more right than persons born of woman. The persons born by the scotus are the only persons accorded rights.
I wonder how long your "better idea" would be in effect. If corporations were restricted to the same linitations as real "persons," they would quickly go to court to have those limits thrown out. After that you and I would be able to contribute many thousands of dollars to candidates. Talk about freedom!
We know that corporations cannot be shamed into not making contributions, but I think Hightower's suggestion is aimed at shaming the politicians who accept the contributions. On the other hand, they are as shameless as the corporations, so the suggestion probably would not work.
I think a good idea is one I saw mentioned on CD once. Have the candidates for political office wear suits with the logos of the companies that act as their "sponsors," the way Nascar drivers do. They would look like clowns of course, but that is what they are, so who cares?
sheepherder: You've rejected my "better idea" as a "waste of words" so what do you call your judgment that neither the Hightower idea nor your own "NASCA logo" one would work? What exactly was the merit of those words?
As regards the impracticality of campaign finance limiting the size of corporate contributions, I grant the difficulty of getting such legislation through the Republican house (or even a Democratic one were that the case). Asking legislators to bite the hand that feeds them is not an easy sell, at best. But if we believe at all in what so many profess---that popular demand is the real driver of reform---we have to find the way to effectuate that power; otherwise democracy is dead and we might as well get stoned and tolerate life until we die a merciful early death.
Phoenix: You write well and can pen a compelling strategic narrative. Thank you.
Your item on your wish list would have to start in the Republican House. That of course will not happen. Your whole post is kind of a waste of words.
Greg R: I see I conflated yours and sheepherd's responses to my post: see my reply to him above.
The only real answer is a Corporate Personhood Amendment. Ironically, I first read about that in an article written by Jim Hightower at least 25 years ago. Obama should give someone in Congress a bill. It can be simple: Corporations are not classified as persons and constitutional protections are limited to due process and truthful commercial speech.
I'm not holding my breath.
I would be willing to have any organization labeled a non-person.
I agree. The only possible solution is a Constitutional Amendment beginning with the Six Words, "A Corporation is not a Person . . . ."
Those who would include Unions (or anything else) in the conversation may not be tuned-in to the complete corruption that is Corporate lobbying, privatization, globalization, and the political facade.
Due to the procedural roadblocks involved in passing such a Corporate Personhood Amendment, the only way forward is via revolution. IMO, a successful revolution requires an icon. The bad guys are fully aware of this, so they just assassinate when a single icon becomes a threat (e.g., JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon).
The Revolution needs some icons. One possibility would be a large number of celebrities coming together to stand against the machine, all completely focused on the Amendment as the centerpiece. For example, the Concert For Darfur is an awesome double-album of John Lennon songs covered by big stars. If those same recording artists would take the next step and be brave and stand up and do some huge concerts, they could jump-start the Revolution. Nah, Steven Tyler is too busy with his gig on American Idol.
NOLO: Another paid informer, huh? Anyone who would conflate a labor union, collecting its pittance in dues, with the astronomical funds many well-known corporations (most of them chemical and/or moral offenders to LIFE at large) have access to, and thus leverage via that legal blackmail known as lobbying... is a FRAUD.
Were there an equal playing field between workers (who form unions to protect their generally meager wages and benefits, particularly NOW as a direct result of decisions like the mislabled, "Citizens United," given that the new muscle is already being shown by those so evidently prepared to purchase politicians, like the idiot-boy governor of Wisconsin) and corporations, your points would be worth considering.
However, it is a common right wing talking point to confate one (unions) with the other (corporations)... oddly similar (and thus likely issuing from the same PR firm) to the manner by which congress-people speak about NOT raising taxes, as if the amount saved, or rendered "unto Caesar" by a typical American family really compares with the savings to the very rich? As if the small potatos saved by those with lower incomes (although they need every penny these days) is relative to what the rich have managed to amass in record time, largely by using that successful talking point... as if all taxes are equal.
In both instances, everyone is alleged to fit into (and/or occupy) the same boat, and whether it rises or falls is said to impact all ships. Truth is, given the FACT revealed by today's Gini Co-efficient, these skillfully related tactics have resulted in more and more wealth remaining in fewer and fewer hands, or wealth being socially engineered to aggregates upwards.
You sound like your probable pals who try to tell us that nuclear power is safe, or that the democrats are really better than those awful republicans, or that population numbers are the real issue, so that necessary environmental laws (and their direct emcumbrance of business, a/k/a profits) need not be considered at so TIMELY a time!
Speaking of time, I need to bike...
Don't hold your breath.
He is NOT TIMID, you gullible freak! He is owned by Wall St. and will do whatever the corporatists and bankers tell him to do! It's one party with 2 wings, Dems and Reps. It's Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers, good cop/bad cop. The elections you should be concentrating on are called "Primaries" where you can still find honest ('tho woefully underfunded) candidates. Stop voting for whomever sends you the most slick mailers, puts on the most inane 30-second TV ads. Don't vote for any candidate who has attracted money!
rudyspeaks: "Don't vote for any candidate who has attracted money!"
This is incredibly sage advice, maybe the only way that money control of politics can ever be brought under control. If under-funded candidates would only make the over- funding of their opponents the issues of their campaigns, consumer resistance might kick in as people learn to "vote against the money,"
Sounds like a new fundraising initiative.
Not a chance in hell.
On second thought, why should we add our poor pathetic weak-assed voices to push Obama to do the right thing? A lot of things don't go our way. Why set ourselves up for possible disappointment? There is something about complaining and shaking our fists at the Gods of Industry (and other such Powers beyond our poor hope and suffering) that creates a sense of community suffering that lets us realize how together we really are. Yes, I'm feeling better already.
Greg R:
A voice speaks to you straight from your personal boob tube:
"Do you suffer from Battered Wife Syndrome?
Have you known abuse beyond abuse,
betrayal, after betrayal,
but you still stand by your man?
If so, then you need to attend this 3-day seminar,
entitled, 'Wake the Fuck Up!' That's right,
'Wake the Fuck Up' can mean a life-changing
encounter, a whole new way to get to know
and understand yourself.
Only by penetrating the great mystery of why, extended
to Why Me? of Why Him? Will you find the power to
liberate yourself from the delusion to which you so
clearly suffer.
And if you act now, we'll include, the accompanying book,
in easy to read lettering, also entitled, 'Wake the Fuck Up!'
But you must act now, for seats are limited and in demand.
Take advantage of this special, limited time offer... the
entire package can be yours for just $69.99.!!!
That's right... just $69.99
So call now. You'll be glad you did!"
Operators are standing by.
The congress of the United States is the most corrupt elected body in the western world where every vote is determined by money given to lawyer politicians many of whom do not know how to spell and yet have become millionaires. Politicians up to and including the president are bought and sold by rich corporate sponsors and this was before the right wing court declared corporations are people so this idea to embarass the corporate rulers of America is a total farce.
Thalidomide,
Well said.
It is a fact which can be verified here online that over half of our Congress and Supreme Court are millionaires. We are living in a Plutocracy and that's not going to change!
CORRUPTION THROUGH AND THROUGH!!!!!!!!
The purpose of politicians is to reap the rewards of graft and corruption.That's why hey want to be politicians. Once the pursuit,by politicians, for graft and corruption becomes the paramount objective of politicians it means the end of a functional government and society.
I believe Jim Hightower wrote this piece with tongue in cheek. He is quite aware that Obama will not do the right thing, but by pointing out the obvious, some of the 'confused majority' of the public might start to make the connection between Wall Street, K Street and D.C. Whatever your criticisms of Jim Hightower may be, he definitely despises the way corporate America has highjacked our government. On that account alone, he deserves our respect.
There have been many calls for Hightower to run for President. He is a great public speaker and his humor is sublime. The word on the street is that the FBI has some dirt on him and has, for some time, been blackmailing him into relative submission, keeping him from running.
I seem to recall that back in the days in Texas, when talked about for a senate race, Jim HIghtower said that his relationship with his long-time partner, without benefit of marriage, made his campaign a non-starter. Maybe that's still the issue as many in American still think being married is a big deal
I'm hoping this article is written with sarcasm because we all know that this executive order will NEVER be given.
IF THE CZAR ONLY KNEW!
Unlike Bush, Obama has made some efforts to counter the disastrous policies of the right wing radicals and special interests--but his achievements have been inadequate. His tentative plans to approve a pipeline from the Canadian Oil Shales (the most destructive means obtaining fossil fuels), with inadequate emphases on solar, and wind power, can only expedite the geometrically progressing deterioration of our planet.
The destruction of marine life from ocean acidification, the extreme meteorological disturbances from the additional atmospheric energy, the inundation of heavy populated coastal areas from ice melting and water expansion, and spreading of tropical diseases, are some of the detriments resulting from the increasing CO2 and related warming.
Jimmy Carter had outlined a ten point approach for mitigating the environmental and economic problems that now plague us. Sadly he was rewarded with then unprecedented smear campaigns and replaced with a president more compatible to the special interests. Had his measures been followed, our outlook now would be far better. . If Obama seizes the opportunity to enact Mr Carter’s measures, history will treat him well even if it costs him relection. Otherwise he will be remembered as the president who failed to defang the special interests and allow environmental degradation to proceed. unabated.
Don't forget that Democrat or Republican, makes no difference. Different side of same coin. And, it isn't who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes. Both party's candidates and voting officials are looking forward to a lucrative voting season. Lots more cash slopping around for purchasing vote. It isn't ever about the democratic process, it is about getting like minded people elected, no matter how. So, if your state does not recognize ballots as being public records, available for public inspection, then you can be pretty sure votes are being switched by election officials. No oversight, no accountability... equals corruption. Read about the recent Vermont Supreme Court decision.
http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/09/the-supremes-come-to-the-sunshine/
Fight back ... save the right to have your vote properly counted.. and applied.