Mo Money Mo Problems

Recently, I wrote about the potential implications of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Since the ruling, several counteracts to the outcome have been proposed to retain some semblance of order in the campaign finance system. To recap, the ruling in favor of Citizens United overturned standing laws and limits on campaign finance by corporations. As a result, corporations will be allowed to spend freely on political campaigns out of corporate treasury funds. I, like many, believe this decision will be detrimental to the fairness of the political process.

Last week, Senator Chuck Schumer (D- NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D - Md.) designed a bill, which Schumer introduced to the Senate, to amend the ruling. Schumer, who called the decision, "one of the worst the Supreme Court has ever issued," voiced his desire to pass a bill immediately so that the upcoming 2010 midterm elections are not as vastly affected by the changes in FEC laws. "If we don't act quickly, this decision will have an immediate and devastating impact on the 2010 elections."

The bill aims to prevent foreign corporations from contributing to political campaigns, and ban companies who received bailout money from contributing unlimited funds until they have paid back their federal debts. Additionally, the Schumer-Van Hollen legislation would add transparency to the practice of corporate contributions. It would require corporate disclosure on donations, require that candidates be entitled to equal airtime to rebut corporate advertisements and lastly, and I believe most importantly, "implement stand-by-your-ad provisions on corporate-backed ads."

While I believe the Supreme Court ruling will prove disastrous to the American political system, my last hope lies in the fact that all publicly traded corporations, too, are comprised of individuals with a voice. If Congress passes legislation requiring CEOs of corporations to appear in advertisements and state that they approve the message, there are two potential outcomes that could deter corporations from flooding the market with their funds. First, CEOs and boards of directors would be reluctant to run ads in the first place because of their fear of appearing biased or partisan and losing either investments or business (or both). Secondly, if companies did indeed run ads and shareholders disagreed with their public message, they would sell their stock in that company.

While the Schumer-Van Hollen legislation provides a strong yet reasonable, first response, others are seeking a more aggressive strategy of reform.

Recently, the Fair Elections Now Act was introduced in the Senate by Arlen Specter (D - Pa.) and Dick Durbin (D - Ill.) and in the House by John Larson (D - Conn.) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R - N.C.). The legislation proposes reforms for the public financing of Congressional elections. In addition to a limited amount of federal election funds, candidates would receive four to one federal matching funds for any donation under $100, encouraging them to run grassroots campaigns and involve large amounts of donors in their community and districts. Additionally, Fair Elections would help to offset the cost of media by providing them with media vouchers and by giving participating candidates a discounted rate for broadcast rates.

As Agnes Gund, a philanthropist and noted political donor, acknowledged in a recent editorial for Politico.com, the Fair Elections Now Act targets the fundamental issues of campaign finance, while the Schumer-Van Hollen legislation is more of a temporary measure. "It’s a good start but does not address the root of the problem: the never-ending chase for campaign cash and the influence of special interests in our political process."

As I stated in my previous post, "it seems to me that the Public Financing system is the only way to maintain any semblance of fairness in our election system." While I support the measures outlined in the Schumer-Van Hollen bills, I believe the Fair Elections Now Act is an important step forward in the reform of campaign finance, which I believe is a necessity.

Come Together

There is no denying that today's political climate is one of the most fractured and partisan in American history. Perhaps not since the Civil War has the divide between two parties in American politics been so volatile and in such disagreement. Fueled by economic crisis, a controversial health care debate and a rebellious right wing movement, Washington partisanship seems irreparable.

However, in his recent State of the Union Address, President Obama voiced his intent to inspire bipartisan action. He called for "a bipartisan Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad." In his latest efforts of bipartisanship, the President has proposed a bipartisan summit on health care to hear the concerns of both sides. While conservative pundits have been quick to denounce the offer as a "trap," the effort by the President is a necessary and welcome step forward in a climate of political divide.

The use and the threat of use of the filibuster in the Senate has grown to uncontrollable levels. Originally instituted by accident when the Senate voted that they didn't need to vote to vote (think about it), the filibuster has become, in reality, a tyranny of the minority. Instead of a simple majority of 51, the Senate is restricted by the "magic number" of 60 seats to be filibuster-proof.

In addition to the constant threat of filibuster, the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement has jeopardized partisan politics by exacerbating the repercussions for voting outside of party lines. For instance, John McCain recently voted against a bill that he co-sponsored "that would have formed a task force on the deficit to try to force tough choices on Congress." Facing a challenge from a Tea-Party sponsored candidate in his upcoming Senate race, McCain was forced to vote against his own bill so as to not alienate potential voters.

With any hope, the upcoming health care summit will be able to reconcile both issues of the health care bill and broader issues of partisanship. As President Obama annunciated in his State of the Union, "We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Apparent Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Money

In his 2005 book, "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power," Joel Bakan writes, "Democracy requires, at a minimum, some measure of equality of opportunity to participate in the political process. Yet profound inequality is the result when corporations - huge concentrations of shareholder wealth - exercise the same rights as individuals in that process. Today, warns Robert Monks, we face a "situation of great precariousness"; we are "dangerously close to the co-optation of government by business." "Unless we are extremely attentive to the inclination of business to dominate government," he says, "it could well be that the institution [of government] will fade."

On January 20th, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision prohibiting limitation of corporate spending in political campaigns. It is likely that this ruling will fundamentally change the way that campaigns are run and will prove a serious detriment to the fairness of elections.

Until this point, corporations were limited in the amount of money that they donated to political campaigns or candidates, and when they were permitted to run TV ads. However, in the ruling, the majority opinion found that, "if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing any citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Essentially, the controversial ruling deems that corporations have the same rights under the Constitution as an individual citizen. This distinction is a difficult one to make when one considers the position of a corporation in the context of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. It is difficult to imagine applying the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, to anyone other than an individual. However, it has been established that corporations do have the capabilities to sue or be sued and are protected under the 14th Amendment of equal right to due process.

But the issue here is the disproportionate and disadvantageous position of the American individual. Can governmental elections truly be for the people and by the people if a corporation is able to throw millions of dollars behind a candidate of their choosing?

In the 2008 election, Barack Obama became the first candidate to opt out of Federal Public Financing, raising and spending records amounts of money. But with the recent ruling, it seems to me that the Public Financing system is the only way to maintain any semblance of fairness in our election system. I believe that money and corporations should not drive elections, candidates and ideals should.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Corporate Free Speech - Chris Dodd
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations