How to deal with corruption

Represent.us has a lot of energy and ideas. Here's the reaction to McCutcheon: It is time to move from defense to offense, and pass a wave of local anti-corruption laws across the nation over the next few years — while simultaneously organizing a 21st century anti-corruption movement made of grassroots conservatives, moderatesand progressives. The nation is ripe for such a movement, with voters abandoning the major parties in droves. A recent Pew study shows that a full half of millennials identify as political independents, up from 38% in 2004. It is the combination of passing bold reforms in cities and states, while creating a loud and visible, right-left anti-corruption movement that will provide the political power necessary to forcechange. We stand at a crossroads. Political corruption has grown so severe that reality is much closer to the dark TV drama “House of Cards” than what we learned about in grammar school. A recent New Yorker story about corruption in North Carolina describes state Senate Majority Leader John Unger: “Unger recalled the first time that a lobbyist for a chemical company asked him to vote on a bill. “I said, ‘I don’t sign on to anything until I read it.’ And he said, ‘Well, that’s not the way it works around here.’ I said, ‘Well, I don’t know how it works down here, but that’s the way I work.’ And he said, ‘Well, if you don’t learn to get along, when it comes to your reelection, we’ll stick a fork in you.” McCutcheon turned that lobbyist’s salad fork into a pitchfork. But with the right strategy, we the people can, and will, stick a fork in the beast that our system has become.

Continue ReadingHow to deal with corruption

Warning from Public Citizen on the extent of the plutocracy

I received this mass emailing today from Public Citizen:

Warning from Public Citizen (from a mass emailing I just received). These numbers are stunning: Here’s something rather alarming to consider. Forbes recently updated its list of billionaires. Each of the notorious Koch Brothers — Charles and David, the 6th and 7th richest men alive — are now estimated to be worth $40 billion. That’s up $6 billion each from just a year earlier, which was up $9 billion each from just a year before that. I guess it really does take money to make money. If you have billions to begin with. But wait, there’s more. Total spending in the 2012 federal election — for the White House and every open seat in Congress — was $6.3 billion. It was the most expensive election ever. Yet the Koch Brothers could have easily covered that record-smashing tab all by themselves just with the amount their already vast wealth increased in a single year. Let me say that again: The Koch Brothers alone could pretty much fund every candidate for federal office without even eating into their unimaginable fortunes. Then there’s casino magnate and funder of the far-right, Sheldon Adelson. And Karl Rove’s dark money Crossroads outfits. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And Exxon Mobil, Goldman Sachs, Comcast and all the other mega-corporations that “are people too.” We face this basic choice: democracy or plutocracy. I know where I come down, and where you do, too. It’s time to roll up our sleeves. Nobody is doing more than Public Citizen — that’s YOU — to defend democracy from billionaires and Big Business. We ARE the front lines in the battle for the very heart and soul of this country.

Continue ReadingWarning from Public Citizen on the extent of the plutocracy

Anti-democratic Scalia

At Democracy Now, Amy Goodman discussed McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which has been referred to as "the next Citizens United."

Republican leaders and wealthy GOP donor Shaun McCutcheon wants the Supreme Court to throw out aggregate limits on individual contributions in a single two-year cycle, saying they violate free speech. "If these advocate limitations go down, 500 people will control American democracy. It would be 'government for the 500 people,' not for anybody else — and that’s the risk," says Burt Neuborne, law professor and founding legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. . . "AMY GOODMAN: During the oral arguments, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, quote, "By having these limits you are promoting democratic participation, then the little people will count some, and you won’t have the super-affluent as the speakers that will control the elections." Justice Antonin Scalia responded somewhat sarcastically by saying, quote, "I assume that a law that only—only prohibits the speech of 2 percent of the country is okay." That was Scalia. BURT NEUBORNE: And that’s the—that’s the gulf that divides the court on these cases. Justice Ginsburg thinks that we should use campaign finance reform to advance equality, so that everybody has a roughly equal political influence. Scalia says, "Look, if you’re rich, you’re entitled to have as much influence as you can buy." And that’s now been the collision, and the Scalia side has won five-to-four consistently in recent years."

Continue ReadingAnti-democratic Scalia