Campaign Finance and Occupy

Check out RIFE member Ben Wofford's great op-ed in last Monday's Providence Journal! It's a great argument for how the goals of the Transparency In Political Spending Act (new name!) align perfectly with both the Citizens United backlash, and the Occupy movement.

Limit corporate sway over voters
BEN WOFFORD

As Occupiers become seemingly permanent fixtures in public parks across America, it’s almost commonplace to hear, as one elderly man recently put it, that “corporations are different from human beings” because “they have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts.”

He wasn’t finished. Americans have “a government captured by corporate interests,” one no longer “fair” or “responsive.” “The result,” he vented, “is cynicism and disenchantment.”

But this wasn’t a protestor in Burnside Park. It was Justice John Paul Stevens, writing a scathing dissent in Citizens United v. FEC almost two years ago. In one of the most irresponsible rulings in history, Citizens United struck down nearly 50 years of sensible limits on corporate spending, handing corporations truly limitless and breathtaking new power to influence our elections.

By so restricting government’s ability to regulate spending on speech, the court turned our elections into fresh meat for a corporate wolf pack that eagerly accepted the invitation, spending vast amounts of campaign cash in 2010. What’s more, Stevens’s prediction that growing corporate influence would corrode our faith in government has proved frighteningly accurate. Never before has the opinion of the average person meant so little. Welcome to the Citizens United era.

But there exists another band of citizens uniting — taking to the streets in frustration that their voices might be heard. As pundits struggle to pin down a movement often criticized for its shifting focus — income inequality, corporate greed, unaccountable politics, banks and bailouts — they overlook the common thread that ties them together. Each of these grievances signifies only the dead branches on our sickly democracy. They each grow and originate from one root source: campaigns, elections and politics that are driven more and more by fewer and fewer individuals.

Citizens United revealed the importance of our seemingly arcane campaign-finance laws. It’s the failure of these laws that undergirds not only the Occupy movement, but the very crisis of civic confidence that sparked it. Very soon that crisis could engulf Rhode Island — unless we do something about it. We must.

Money has become the lifeblood of our political process. It decides which candidates win elections and which lose. But the very principles of democracy depend on our equal ability to influence elections. Although the court in Citizens United purported to uphold such democratic principles as the First Amendment, few Supreme Court decisions have produced such undemocratic consequences.

In West Virginia, a coal corporation recently created a political action committee (PAC) to lobby for weakened pollution standards, outrageously named “For the Sake of the Children,” pumping millions of dollars in to fund it. In North Carolina, a candidate for governor used his rich father-in-law to dump millions into a similar PAC to anonymously fund a barrage of campaign ads. Luckily, both cases were caught and exposed. Countless others, however, go unnoticed.

That’s why Rhode Island is in danger. Right now, there exists not one law on the books to prevent similar stories from happening in Rhode Island. They could be happening right here, right now — but frighteningly, we would not even know. Without asking simple but stern questions of corporate donors — Who are you? Where is your money coming from? — we’re all but inviting them to meddle with our elections, and anonymously.

Despite Citizens United’s restrictions, however, all hope is not lost. This spring, Rhode Island legislators will introduce the Rhode Island Disclosure Act, a simple bill that makes common-sense changes to our state’s antiquated campaign-finance laws. For the first time, Ocean State voters would be able to see who is funding whom, online, and with ease. Political groups would also have to reveal whom they coordinate with.

And the act tightens loopholes: No longer could companies fund last-minute TV blitzes the night before Election Day and file the disclosure papers months later, as in one recent Rhode Island election. The act would tighten those requirements in the week before voting.

The Rhode Island Disclosure Act is our chance to finally grab hold of a simple, good idea and make it real. It would allow us to start the rebuilding process to rectify our country’s ailing civic health.

Just ask Justice Stevens. In a post-Citizens world, he wrote, the “democratic duty” falls on citizens “to take measures designed to guard against the [harmful] effects of corporate spending.”

Campaign finance laws like the Rhode Island Disclosure Act are the key to cleaning up our democracy. The very concept of “We the People” depends on it.

A Democratic Treat

We don't have to look very far to find some spooky stuff in America this Halloween weekend. A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office found that the distribution of wealth in America has grown increasingly uneven over the past thirty years, and huge corporations are pouring more money than ever into political campaigns to influence our election cycle. The National Institute on Money in State Politics found that independent expenditures grew 28-fold in Iowa alone after the Citizens United Decision. Scary stuff.

Luckily, people are stepping up to the plate to fight back against shadowy corporations in the political arena. On Wednesday the 26th, the chair of the New York City Campaign Finance Board wrote an editorial in a New York City newspaper stressing the need to disclose independent expenditures. The article, which can be found here, shows how individuals who see campaign disclosure first-hand recognize the necessity for stricter laws.

Also, a recent Huffington Post article reported the growing movement for clearer disclosure laws in response to Citizens United. According to the article, an increasing number of citizens have made campaign finance a priority and are determined to fight for fairer, freer elections.

The floodgates were unleashed for moneyed interests to push their agenda after Citizens United, but Americans are acting in response. Fed up with the inequality and distortion of American democracy, citizens all over are fighting for their voices to be heard. How's that for a treat this Halloween?

Money in Politics: An issue we can all get upset about

This Venn-Diagram has been circulating around the internet and it sums up quite well the major problem in this country and what is the underlying cause of much of the current unrest in America. While this is certainly a simplistic description of the issue, it highlights that even in these times of intense political polarization, what people across the political spectrum can agree on is that money, and in particular large corporations, has too much influence on our government. Until we address the fundamental problem, we cannot solve what the Occupy Wall Street or Tea Party members are upset about.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1011/An_Occupy_Wall_StreetTea_Party_Venn_diagram.html

Obama is Raking in the Cash for 2012

New York Times reported today that Obama and the DNC have spent $87 million, more money than all of the Republican nominees have raised so far. In particular, super PACS have been contributing a lot to his fundraising:

"Such groups can raise unlimited contributions and are required to disclose their expenditures much less frequently than the campaigns or party committees, creating some uncertainty in assessing how the fund-raising wars will ultimately aid one candidate or another."

Everybody loves a nice loophole.

To read the entire article, click here.

State for Sale

The New Yorker takes a close look at how one man's fortune is changing the direction of state politics in North Carolina. Since Citizens' United, corporations and businesses can spend unlimited sums to support or oppose candidates.

Read the article here.

Citizens United - Not Just for Corporations

Citizens United has a few more tricks up its sleeve. While the Supreme Court decision is primarily known for unleashing a torrent of independent expenditures, it also removed barriers to union participation in politics. As described in the New York Times (“A Campaign Finance Ruling Turned to Labor’s Advantage” - 9/25/11), organized labor is now able to engage non-union voters through direct solicitation. Of course, they too are utilizing the ubiquitous SuperPAC to make their “speech,” also known as money, heard loud and clear. Why would an interest group allocate so many resources to political maneuvering? Well, listen to Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO.

Mr. Trumka said unions were tired of Democratic politicians taking them for granted after labor shoveled millions of dollars into Democratic campaigns. In distancing themselves, at least a bit, from the Democrats, unions are becoming part of a trend in which newly empowered outside groups build what are essentially party structures of their own — in this case, to somewhat offset the money flowing into conservative groups that are doing the same thing.

You can see the assumed quid pro quo here. When the Democrats failed to act on union priorities, labor funds were diverted elsewhere. Where there is money in politics, there is a real incentive to pander to its sources. In this age of endless ideological dueling, with each side refusing to concede territory, the need for leadership is urgent. Fair elections will not destroy the specter brought about by Citizens United, but it can give our voter-minded candidates a fighting chance.

-Daniel Tatar

Former Republican Senator's Argument for Fair Elections

Last month, in a national advance for Fair Elections, a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss the Fair Elections Now Act. The bill, sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), would offer voluntary public financing to candidates for the House and Senate.

In today's Washington Post, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson wrote an op-ed to describe his fierce support for national Fair Elections. He argued the bill would promote free speech for ordinary Americans, encourage greater citizen participation in our democracy, and keep our elected officials accountable to people rather than to special moneyed interests.

In addition, he explained why Republicans already have and ought to continue to support Fair Elections:

Will was correct that only Democratic members of the Senate attended the hearing. But I am not alone. Former Senate colleagues who also support this long-overdue reform include Republicans Warren Rudman, Bill Cohen, Bill Brock and Frank Murkowski, as well as dozens of other former senators, representatives and governors from our side of the aisle. In fact, we owe the concept of publicly funded elections to a great Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, who proposed a similar reform in his 1905 State of the Union address.

Yes, Durbin’s bill has won more support from Democrats than Republicans in Congress in recent years, and frankly that makes me sad. The Republican Party I represented proudly for 18 years did not shy away from taking on special-interest money when it conflicted with constituents’ needs. And Tea Party adherents express a healthy indignation at what they and millions of others perceive is a government captured by and beholden to wealthy interests.

Shut up! I'm talking here! Fair Elections and the First Amendment

With all the ideological racket in play over the Supreme Court's consideration of Arizona election law, currently under a publicly funded system, the LA Times editorial staff parse through some of the arguments in opposition to the publicly funded elections system, and explain why they are fallacious.

The main argument against the publicly funded system is that it limits privately funded candidates first amendment rights to free speech because their voices will be diluted by matching public funds, which incentivize privately funded candidates not to speak for fear of their opponent being able to speak back. The entire political system, with parties and factions, and all, are intended to be an impetus to debate to determine what is best for the commonwealth of the country, which is a purpose of the government beholden to the people.

Supreme Court Justice Kagan said "There is no restriction at all. It's more speech all the way around." The proponents of the view that epitomize 'first amendment freedom of speech rights are limited through publicly funded elections' are perversely undermining their own claims; publicly funded elections are allowing for more use of these first amendment freedoms.

In a country as diverse as the U.S., it is important that government officials commensurate with that diversity are not presented with preemptory roadblocks in the opportunity to run for office. Publicly funded elections could allow the voices of marginalized or currently underrepresented groups to be heard.

The very assertion that matching public funds to private campaigns limits freedom of speech manifests the perverse marriage of money in politics, and it is important that this be mitigated to the extent possible in a nation that prides itself on its racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, political, ideological, social, and cultural diversity.

See the editorial here:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/31/opinion/la-ed-campaign-20110331

In the words of two former U.S leaders:

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." ~George Washington

“It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own.” Herbert Hoover

"Dictator" is admittedly hyperbolic, but the sentiment rings true.

~Jasmyn

A Case for Success

A study put out by the nonpartisan, non-profit Center for Governmental Studies has shown that publicly funded elections on the municipal level of Albuquerque resulted in decreased money spent in the elections and campaigns, and even more importantly, an increased emphasis on the actual issues.

In the Albuquerque mayoral race of 2009, all three candidates used the publicly financed system, and others said they would use it in the future. The premise that candidates show their viability for candidacy through collecting small amounts (in this case $5), from their constituents and also collecting signatures, ensures that the people who vote not only have a stronger connection to their public officials, but also that the candidates themselves can spend less time fund raising and more time doing what the people elected them to do!

Saving money is something garners respect for public officals when many constituencies are feeling the pinch of the recession.

Of course, the system is still being perfected, but the success of publicly funded in a city as large as Albuquerque provides strong encouragement to other cities and states pursuing similar measures, especially as cities and states everywhere look to squeeze money out of thin air.

Fitting, then, is the pun that the Center for Governmental Studies uses to describe Albuquerque's Open and Ethical Elections program, calling it "richly reward[ing]"


Read more about it, including a link to the Center for Governmental Studies Report, here: http://newmexicoindependent.com/69348/report-lauds-albuquerque-publicly-financed-campaigns

~Jasmyn

The Story of Citizens United v. FEC

The makers of The Story of Stuff explain why democracy only works when the people are in charge.