Comments on: Bernie Sanders comments on SCOTUS reaffirmation of Citizens United

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 07:04:50 +0000

John Nochols comments on the new Montana decision affirming Citizens United:

The court’s 5-4 decision in the Montana case of American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock significantly expands the scope and reach of the Citizens United ruling by striking down state limits on corporate spending in state and local elections. “The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”

Translation: If Exxon Mobil wants to spend $10 million to support a favored candidate in a state legislative or city council race that might decide whether the corporation is regulated, or whether it gets new drilling rights, it can. But why stop at $10 million? If it costs $100 million to shout down the opposition, the court says that is fine. If if costs $1 billion, that’s fine, too.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/25-6

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:36:52 +0000

Adam: You’ve made this point repeatedly, and I think it is a good point to make.

Is this a difficult quest? Should regular folks just give up? No. To do so would be immoral and even more self-destructive than the status quo.

By: Adam Herman

Adam Herman — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:37:58 +0000

Here’s the most pernicious part. Even after Citizens United, individuals have a hard time doing their own independent electioneering if they don’t have lawyers. A couple of dudes wanted to spend just a few thousand on an ad buy criticizing a Presidential candidate(not sure which one), and found that when they asked the FEC what was allowed, they couldn’t get a straight answer. And why should two median income dudes willing to plunk down a few thousand to have their voices heard have to seek permission to speak? It’s absurd.

By: Adam Herman

Adam Herman — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:36:11 +0000

If there’s anything our campaign finance quest has taught us, it’s that if you close off one way for powerful interests to influence a campaign, they’ll just do something else. What happened when hard money limits were imposed? They went to soft money. Then they limited soft money. So they did independent electioneering. Then they stopped corporate electioneering. So individuals who owned companies started doing the independent electioneering. So let’s say we close that off too. Guess what? You’ve still got a huge loophole: the press loophole. The Kochs buy a cable news station, and their advocacy becomes 24/7/365 propaganda.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:10:30 +0000

Adam: If money can no longer buy access, then other things (like ideas that further the public interest) have a better chance of obtaining access. It’s that simple.

By: Adam Herman

Adam Herman — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:24:10 +0000

I agree with that much, I just don’t see how it follows that something like public financing would lead to you getting face time with big time pols. It would save them the trouble of having to please the Kochs but it wouldn’t obligate them to please you anymore than it did before. Really, it would just enhance the power of groups that don’t rely on direct donations to get their way. Such as the NRA, which is leaning on Democrats hard to support the Holder contempt resolution, threatening to score the vote against them. The NRA has such amazing superpowers that they were specifically exempt from the DISCLOSE Act.

By: Niklaus Pfirsig

Niklaus Pfirsig — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:21:19 +0000

I’m going to state the obvious problem that no one will talk about. The citizen’s united decision was a strategically planned set-up for the right wing factions in our government to distance the control of our government from the majority of the governed, and to effectively legalize institutionalized corruption and graft.
But Citizen’s United vs the F.E.C. is not the problem, only a symptom of the underlying problem. The system is being gamed by a few players who seek to destroy democracy, and create a new empire. These players feel they owe nothing to the country, will shift their allegiances to whom ever benefits them the most, and when the US is “used up” we will become the dumping grounds for their waste.
What happens when the majority realize they have no recourse to the law will be open armed revolution, and personally, I don’t like the idea of ducking bullets.

BTW… Doug: If your or some of your friends are reading this, it is just my assessment of the situation. I don’t advocate violence, nor do I condone it.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:36:27 +0000

Yes, lots of rich individuals are giving big wads of money, but we don’t know where much of the money is coming from. Here’s a recent example: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/concerned-women-americas-6-million-anti-obama-campaign

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:01:30 +0000

I completely disagree with you on this, Adam. If I hand a politician huge wads of money, that buys me access, both immediately and in the future, because I am now on the politician’s list of people to court for the ext election cycle.

When’s the last time you’ve seen a White House function filled with people making the median income? Those people get to stay home and watch politics on the TV “news.”

By: Adam Herman

Adam Herman — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:45:39 +0000

Your point about the public having access to politicians, there’s no campaign finance reform that would help with that. If the politicians don’t have to raise money, they just don’t pay attention to anyone at all. Plus incumbents end up with overwhelming advantages since they can spend money legally, often taxpayer money, promoting their candidacies, plus use their connections in the national and local media. We’ve had a couple of wave elections recently, and one reason for all that Congressional turnover has been all the money flowing to challengers. Cut off that flow, and incumbents will have a 99% reelect rate again.