This Court Decision Could Create Corporate Sugar Daddies For Politicians

Who has more money for campaign donations, the average American or the average corporation?

October 7, 2013

Shaya Tayefe Mohajer, Take Part

Now that corporations are people, the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding if the super-rich can become sugar daddies for politicians, capable of making unlimited donations directly to candidates.

In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee are challenging the government's right to put any limits at all on campaign contributions. A ruling in their favor would go beyond the Citizens United ruling and remove limits from the amount that can be donated in a federal election directly to a candidate.

The campaign finance mayhem began in 2010 when the high court's Citizens United decision allowed corporations to have the same rights to free expression as people, namely, the right to give political donations.

Now, since corporations are people, they want to be best buddies with politicians, and could get the opportunity to do so if Republicans get their way in a new case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

No limits. A candidate could literally be showered with millions of dollars by a corporation.

How likely is the court to take that route?

UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler believes it's very likely to happen, because the court has been hostile to campaign finance laws since Chief Justice John Roberts took charge.

"This Supreme Court has struck down every campaign finance law that has come before it," Winkler said.

That's something considering every campaign season sets new records on campaign donations received, and there's more and more spending in federal politics every election cycle.

"Citizens United freed up a lot of corporations and unions, but many have still stayed on the sidelines. This would allow wealthy individuals to just give to candidate after candidate after candidate," said Winkler.

In effect, that would allow corporations to use the constitutional rights of people to the umpteenth exponent.

That's because very few people can match the buying power of a corporation when it comes to expendable income.

So, doesn't allowing corporations the right of free expression mean that businesses will have a bigger bullhorn in American democracy than people do?

Yes, it does.

Obama takes superPAC money and does the will of his donors--he won't do anything to reverse Citizens United

"As super PAC money from millionaires, billionaires and corporations dominates the 2012 election campaign and may determine the outcome, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain filed an unsolicited brief with the Supreme Court asking the Court to rethink its ruling in Citizens United that "unlimited political contributions to "independent" committees by corporations do not lead to "corruption or the appearance of corruption." (and as subsequently held by a Federal Appeals Court, wealthy individuals)

"McCain was joined in his brief by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). At about the same time, Democratic and Republican attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the history and present reality of political corruption in many states means that Citizens United should not apply to state campaign finance laws...but the president--who takes money from unlimited superPACs--doesn't care. This guy is useless. We'd be better off with McCain because campaign finance reform is THE most important issue we face."~Cenk Uygur

GOP Pushes to Further Corporatize Elections

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 by CommonDreams.org
RNC: Ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates unconstitutional
-CommonDreams staff

An effort by the Republican National Committee may further corporatize the electoral process.

The RNC filed a legal brief Tuesday arguing that a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates is unconstitutional.

The Huffington Post reports:

The ban, part of a 1907 anti-corruption law that helped curb the influence of corporate robber barons, is one of the last bulwarks of campaign finance law left after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision two years ago.

As ThinkProgress notes, an overturning of the ban would have massive consequences:

If a court accepted the RNC’s argument, it would have to strike down the entire federal ban on corporate donations — leaving Exxon and Halliburton free to give money to any candidate they’d like. Congress might be able to restore part of this ban by enacting legislation. But, of course, that would require any such bill disadvantaging corporations to survive John Boehner’s House and Mitch McConnell’s filibuster.

Moreover, if the court accepts the RNC’s argument, it will effectively destroy any limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals or corporation can give to candidates.

Josh Gerstein at Politico writes that the argument could be a boon to the Democrats' portrayal of the GOP:

Whatever its constitutional merits, the Republican argument could be a political liability for the party as Democrats are likely to portray it as further evidence that the GOP is beholden to corporate America. On the other hand, the near-complete breakdown of campaign finance limits during the current presidential race gives something of a boost to those contending that the few remaining restraints are pointless.

Buddy Roemer: "Special interests own our government"

By Eric W. Dolan - RAW STORY

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer, a Republican presidential candidate, blasted the influence of money on American politics during an appearance Thursday on MSNBC.

As part of his presidential campaign, Roemer has stressed the need for campaign finance reform. He has vowed to only accept campaign contributions under $100.

“I’m the only person running for the President of the United States who has been a congressman and a governor,” he said. “I’m the only person running for the President of the United States who doesn’t have a Super PAC, who doesn’t take PAC money, who goes directly to the people. I mean, my god, who do you want as president? A guy taking million dollar checks under the table? Or a woman or man who is free to lead?”

“There have been sixteen national debates. I haven’t been asked to be one a single one of them.”

Roemer accused Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama of being connected with illegal Super PACS. The Super PACS, according to Roemer, were coordinating with the candidates’ campaigns.

“Special interests own our government,” he said. “Where are the people? They’ve disappeared.”

Obama and Congress ARE Wall Street, Geithner IS the Federal Reserve - Now What?

By Eric Blair - Activist Post - October 8, 2011

Barack Obama and his 2008 presidential challenger John McCain both received more money from Wall Street donors than their combined lifetime government salaries. 

It was a billion-dollar-plus campaign.  In fact, all of Congress makes more from Wall Street and corporate campaign contributions than their public salaries.  It is the nature of the modern political system.  And Timothy Geithner, despite cheating on his own taxes, was plucked from the New York Federal Reserve to serve as U.S. Treasury Secretary.  So who can the People turn to for solutions?

Some very well-meaning people have suggested apparent solutions to alleviate some of these challenges.  Some have called for a separation of money and politics. 

Some have called for ending the Federal Reserve System.  Some have suggested a complete write-off of all fraudulent debt. Some want higher taxes imposed on the well-to-do.  Some demand more free government services like healthcare and higher education.  Some say ending the wars at home and abroad will be the cure-all.

Each of these proposed solutions seem to have some attraction, but they also have flaws that need to be addressed.

Remove Money from Politics: In theory the separation of money from politics makes sense. Some have put forward the idea of publicly financed campaigns, which would certainly level the playing field for everyday citizens to compete in elections against generations of elite public servants. However, this theory is much like the failed war on drugs -- if there is a demand for something, there will always be a supply no matter how many walls are built.  If there is a demand for corporate influence on policy, their money will always find a way over those walls.  They may buy direct advertising to advocate for a certain policy, or simply buy unaccountable government regulators to do their dirty work -- both of which already occur.

End the Fed: Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who is widely respected as one of the only champions of the people and the Constitution left in government, suggests absorbing the Federal Reserve Bank into the U.S. Treasury to print and spend interest-free money into the economy. Although this may be one of the best short-term solutions, Geithner and the executive branch will then control the issuance of currency.  Although they are more accountable to the People, they still represent the status quo where the same cabal will likely benefit.  Similarly, presidential candidate Ron Paul wants to end the Fed, but first by legalizing competing currencies so that no single entity wields power over the issuance of money.  Presently, either of these actions would be a huge step forward in resolving our current bondage to debt-based monopoly money, but they are still merely just the beginning of reform.

Complete Debt Forgiveness: I have been one of the advocates for a complete write-off of all fraudulent debt, essentially hitting the economic reset button.  This act would zap all of the power that the banking cartel has over governments and individuals.  Although I truly believe this to be the only way out of this mess, it may require an entirely new free and fair financial structure in place when the button is pushed, or the same group of thugs will likely maintain their control over the system.  A new monetary policy, banking system, credit rules, and stock exchange would have to emerge for such a reset to be effective. Perhaps an Economic Constitution is needed to lay the framework first.

Tax the Rich: Those calling for higher taxes on the wealthy may have their heart in the right place, but this is perhaps the worst of the proposed solutions.  This will change nothing fundamental about the system that enslaves the peasants.  Secondly, at this point, who could trust the legislation to only target the elite who hide their assets offshore anyway?  And, pragmatically, increasing taxes on the rich won't even make a dent in the astronomical national debt, future obligations, or even current expenditures.  Taxing the rich will not create long-term jobs or solve the problem of how the money is created or spent.  More short-term tax revenue may only encourage more government, more spending on wars, the surveillance state, financial bailouts, and subsidies for mega-corporations.  Notably, taxing short-term speculative Wall Street trades (some version of the Tobin tax) seems to have some validity. But in the end, this just gives more money to a disgustingly corrupt government which will still be heavily influenced by big corporations.

Free Education and Healthcare:  Understandably, it only seems fair that if society can produce untold trillions for war and bailouts of fraudulent industries, there should be enough money to educate and maintain the health of its citizens.  Still, free healthcare and education has become synonymous with socialism in our modern society because money must be taken by force from someone else to pay for these "free" services.  Sure, in a perfect society one should have the equal freedom to pursue any level of education based on desire and ability without concern for cost.  And certainly, no one should die or go bankrupt because they lack adequate healthcare.  However, this ultimately becomes a question about the role of government, and the Constitution currently does not give the authority to provide for such services.  Then again, it also doesn't allow for undeclared wars and corporate bailouts either.  No matter what it will be called, or how it will be paid for, until society determines that the health and education of its populace is of utmost importance, it will remain an ill society.  An entirely new system may need to be dreamed up for this to work for everyone.

End the Wars: Yes, yes, and yes.  End the foreign wars.  End the phony war on "terror".  And end the war on drugs.  They only benefit those funding the wars (with interest) and the pirates who the government gives the spoils to.  Because no average citizen ever wants war, it leads some to believe that all wars have been baited by these beneficiaries -- and they wouldn't be wrong.  Unfortunately, for too long we have taken the bait and they have gotten their spoils.  It is time to stop this insanity.  Significantly, this is one of the only practical solutions that will have minimal blowback.  It will save trillions in public spending and immediately bring more harmony to the planet.  However, America will face the very real challenge of creating new employment for returning soldiers, contractors, and laid-off weapons manufacturers, as well as DEA agents, prison guards and others who participate in perpetuating the war on drugs.  So, even though ending all wars is the only sane policy, by itself it is not a silver bullet for economic woes.

Indeed, these are exciting and transformative times, and the People will eventually get what they ask for.  However, they must be careful in what they ask for because the same power structures that they're currently protesting may ultimately end up with more power.  Unless, of course, part of the solution is to remove the corporate state's power to coerce people in the first place. Therefore, a good place to start may be to demand more personal freedom while curbing the rights of multinational corporations and the government itself.

Regardless, the enormity of the problems require that many groundbreaking proposals are put forward and examined.  Please leave your comments and suggestions of what you think needs to be done.

Buddy Roemer's Speech to National Press Club

(As soon as you dismiss everyone affiliated with a political party, along comes someone with the views similar to yours that help you consider more than you might have before you were made aware of them. I differ with most Buddy Roemer's views--except for the most crucial ones, and the most crucial issue of our time and of this country is the amount of corporate influence over the electoral process and government. I find Buddy's views mirror mine on this issue, and any candidate who campaign's that s/he will reduce or eliminate corporate control over our government will get a serious look from me in 2012. This is a speech he gave recently--see if you don't agree with what he says about corporate influence and control over elections and the government. I do disagree with him about regulations--I think the process needs to be reformed, not eliminated.--jef)

Speech to National Press Club in Washington DC on Monday the 15th of august, 2011

Good morning.

I believe America is a great nation. A nation where all things are possible, regardless of your starting point in life.

Most nations have points of strength, decent people, and some opportunity.

But America has always been a special land.

Begun with a declaration of independence to stand against the tyranny of a foreign king and a culture of elitism and class segregation in England, America choose to build on a written foundation of constitutional law.

And build it did. America has prospered into the world’s greatest economic power.

The Land of Opportunity.

I run for president because America is a great nation and a great people.

And America is in trouble, needing bold action by a leader free of any consideration other than what is good for a rising America.

America is in trouble.

20% of its workforce –25 million Americans – are out of work in this “recovery”, or have quit looking, or are underemployed.

We have a million fewer jobs than we did 12 years ago and the jobs we have, pay less.
We have given away our manufacturing jobs. We don’t make things any more. We distribute them. Bad trade.

“Made in America” is an endangered species. We are now dependent on “consumption” and “government”.

We owe more than any nation ever, and much of it to our competition, face endless deficits, averaging $1.1 trillion a year for the next decade, which is as far ahead as they count.

We have a spending addiction, undisciplined by any budget constraints. To maintain the habit, we borrow 42 cents of every dollar spent.

On the revenue side of the ledger, we have a tax code unfair, unreadable, written by lobbyists, and crammed with the loopholes of the special interests.

For good measure, we are addicted to foreign oil, refuse to seal our own borders, and have decided to spend money we don’t have to rebuild other nations, while paralyzed in attempts to help our own.

It is unsustainable.

Economic growth is the only solution, if we plan a nation better than the one we received, if we plan to work our way free again.

Growth is essential to having a land of opportunity.

We can do this. I am positive on America. We can grow again.

At least half a dozen strong policies must be initiated immediately to turn the ship of state.

First, we must stem the outflow of our best jobs, currently leaving America in record numbers to reside in “cheap” labor lands.

“cheap” is one thing, but the use of child labor, forced labor, prison labor, factories without work standards for health and safety, and competition from a system without environmental investment is unfair trade practice, and will be halted. The days of talking “free trade” while we get robbed of our best jobs by “unfair trade” are over.

Some of these same unfair competitors employ a myriad of hidden trade barriers to prevent and delay American exports to enter their country, and use sophisticated currency manipulation techniques to compound the crime.

There are no guarantees for jobs, and we know that technological advances, bad management, and outrageous labor practices can imPACt the size and quality of job demand. But unfair trade practices, if ignored, will cause the loss of entire industries and can ruin a nation. We intend to halt the practice of ignoring or trying to wish away these systematic abuses of “free trade”.

My remedies will include tax reform revision specifics and a fair trade adjustment to the most patent of the violators’ products. I will outline in some detail these set of remedies in my next major speech on the subject of fair trade to be given in the next two weeks.

A president must defend American jobs from unfair foreign competition. We have waited too long, and, for some, it is too late, but these unfair practices will no longer be tolerated when i am president.

In addition, we must win the battle to control federal spending. At 25% of GDP, federal spending is excessive by any standards, unsustainable under any hypothesis, and erodes confidence in the financial management of our nation’s government. For the past 6-months, I’ve detailed a plan of 1% reductions in spending ($140 bn per year) over a 5-year period.

We could begin with elimination of all energy subsidies, including oil, gas, ethanol, unproven energy technology, and the department of energy itself. We could modify social security and Medicare by slowly raising the eligibility age by one month a year for 24 years and by block granting Medicaid with a cap. There are hundreds of other sound spending reductions available and necessary (foreign aid, agriculture and housing subsidies, standardizing software, consolidating information technology, unnecessary overseas military bases, etc.), but you get the point: it can be done, but leadership is required and growth is the essential goal.

Further, i propose that we deregulate small businesses so that they can grow jobs. Small businesses grow 2 out of every 3 new jobs in America over the past 60 years. They are flexible, hard-working, often family owned, work long hours, and are the beginning point of every large company. They are the key to our economic future. They are our competitive advantage over china.

And what do they get from Washington? Nothing, but taxes and regulations, and now, mostly regulations.

If you think federal spending out of control, just look at the growth of regulatory directives! There were 81,000 pages of regulatory comment in the federal registry last year alone. There are more than 4,400 new federal regulations in the pipeline this morning.

Business spent more in regulatory compliance to federal regulations last year ($1.7 trillion) than they did in taxes ($1.5 trillion). This increasing regulatory pressure is particularly disastrous for small business as they usually don’t have a compliance officer, or an in-house lawyer, or a lobbyist in Washington. They are defenseless against this onslaught.

Regulations are the new taxes. And we are “taxing” small business to death. It is the chief reason why small business is not creating new jobs.

We are over-regulating this critical element in our economy.

To restore balance, i propose a halt in the enforcement of all small business regulations implemented since January of 2008. I will restore only those that imPACt safety, health, and have a positive cost/benefit ratio. Further, i will stop implementation of any new regulations on small businesses for the next 4-years, except those that demonstrate health, safety, and a positive cost/benefit analysis.

I’m sending a message to every small business woman and man: dream again, grow again, let’s put America to work again.

In this short list of bold actions required to re-start America, I highlight the need to reduce health care costs. Quality is great. Cost is prohibitive. I would eliminate Obamacare, but keep insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions. I will initiate tort reform, eliminate pocket monopolies by allowing medical insurance coverage across state lines, expose pharmaceuticals to price discounting from competition for service, and incentivize providers to reduce service expenses by allowing them to keep 25% of the savings.

One key action that ties in with jobs, cash management, currency valuation, foreign policy, and discipline in federal spending is my intention for the u.s.to be energy independent within a decade. I will drill where oil and gas are found, do so environmentally safely using modern technology putting 1,000,000 Americans to work, tariffing foreign oil except Canada and Mexico, save $500 billion annually in trade imbalance, restore value of the dollar and reduce the price of gasoline proportionally, open the yucca mountain facility for nuclear waste storage, utilize all forms of domestic energy with the market controlling selection, and eliminate the department of energy.

A complete revision of our unreadable, complex, non-growth oriented tax code is another giant step in our pursuit of solid economic growth. Simple will be the foundation principle, with the elimination of loopholes, exemptions, and deductions to achieve low marginal tax rates for individuals and corporations. With corporate rates at 15% and with a sharp reduction in capital gains rates and on savings, the United States can be a tax haven for capital, fueling the investment necessary in rebuilding the land of opportunity.

Finally, banking reform must be reworked to include having capital ratios rise with bank size, eliminating too big to fail as a regulatory policy, and by restoring a version of Glass-Steagal, separating commercial banking from investment banking. The megabanks are risk prone and dangerous to the overall economy by requiring a regulatory double-standard and by the elements of moral hazard. Banking is too important to be left to the bankers. The regulation of the industry must be a fine balance between too much and too little. The dangers of size and speed must be recognized. Currently, neither are appreciated. Trouble looms.

These seven areas require bold, clear action, as does the resolution of sealing our borders to illegal immigrants, targeting the proliferation of nuclear weapons capability in a shrinking world, and restoring the local component of educational excellence.

But today, i want to talk about why these bold actions will not take place, will not happen.

Special interests own this town.

And the special interests have never been so well off. They are in control, and in a land run more and more by the government, they finance the choice of national candidates, and the presidential election itself.

We are broken and need to take bold action to grow again, but the special interests have never had it so good —- why change?

I agree with those who say that our political system, our nation’s capital, is institutionally corrupt.

For example, special interests write the tax code. You cannot read it. They can. General electric is the largest corporate giver in the last election cycle, made a profit last year of $5.2 billion and paid zero federal income taxes, while the average profitable small business person pays 36%. Fair?

Every year the costs of elections rise, and the same 1% or 2% of America give the money.

98% give nothing. That’s the system and it results in special favors and provisions and opportunities for those at the top who give the money.

We are owned from the top down by special interest money, political action committee (PAC) money, by wall street money, and by the big check.

Institutionally corrupt and it’s getting worse.

Look at the record.

Healthcare reform under president Obama was designed to lower the cost of healthcare yet it didn’t include tort reform. The tort lawyers are big givers to both parties.

It didn’t eliminate the protection that insurance companies have to prevent competition from out of state. Big givers, those insurance companies.

It didn’t require pharmaceutical companies to discount prices on government business. Oh no! Big bucks and the threat of big bucks from these multi-nationals.

A 2,300 page bill, unconstitutional at its core with the insurance mandate, and it didn’t even touch three of the most expensive healthcare costs.

Special interest money wrote the healthcare bill.

Did you know that PACS and lobbyists with Washington DC area addresses gave more money in the last presidential campaign than 32 states combined? Washington dc is a boom town and the rest of America is hurting.

Now, four years later, it’s worse.

The PACS are now uncountable. They can give twice as much as individuals. Why? There is no disclosure, no names, and no accountability as to purpose or source.

Then there is the “bundler”, who collects checks from others, delivers them to the candidate in a bundle with political credit going not to the sucker who give their $2,500 or $5,000, but to the collector who gives the PACkage to the candidate at $100,000 or $200,000 or $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 political value.

I recently read a paper written by a Harvard law school student about bundling and the selection of united states ambassadors under Obama and his predecessors. Checkbook diplomacy he called it.

Historically, all presidents have appointed about 30% political appointees versus 70% professional Foreign Service selections. President Obama is at 65% political (58 out of 90), and the major portion went to “bundlers”, such as:

• Roos to Japan with a $500,000 bundle
• Susman to Great Britain with a $500,000 bundle 
• Rivkin to France with a $800,000 bundle
• Gutman to Belgium for a $775,000 bundle
• Beyer to Switzerland for a $745,000 PACkage.

On and on it goes.

And this is just 5 out of the first 24 bundler-nominees put forth by president Obama. These 24 nominees bundled more than $11 million minimum without counting their contributions to other fund raising opportunities such as the inaugural committee, the president’s leadership PAC, and the democrat national committee. There is no end to the cash these bundlers give and to the power and control it buys.

Both parties have done it, but Obama is the master.

We are selling important public jobs for special favored private money like a third world country.

The Tyranny of the Big Check. Position for sale!

It doesn’t end there.

Lobbyists have become fundraisers in an institutionally corrupt system. Lobbyists have been a critical source of information and focused industry knowledge since the beginning of our nation. It is a position considered honorable and necessary to the function of a representative democracy.

But it should not be combined with the role of a political fundraiser, where the danger is that the size of the check should determine the action of the representative.

Vote buying is a dangerous and slippery slope in a world where fair play and level playing field are as American as “apple pie”.

In short, a registered lobbyist should not be allowed to both lobby and fund raise. His/her choice, one or the other.

Jack Abramoff is a name that comes to mind.

The American bar association just endorsed this separation of registered lobbyist from the act of fund raising.

Special interest money, PAC money, bundled money. They never stop. They never cease. They never sleep.

Announce a new committee or a new appointment? A fundraiser by the special interest lobbyist immediately follows!

Two weeks ago congress agreed on a pitiful budget-debt ceiling resolution which called for a special committee of six dems and six republicans with awesome power of spending cuts and tax increases. It was a bad idea in my opinion, but it is now the law.

We immediately contacted the office of the speaker of the house and the president of the senate asking that all meetings of the special committee be held in a public forum and that members selected pledge not to accept PAC or lobbyists checks during the remainder of their term of office. Let the vote of the people be the ultimate decider of the choices inherent in this unusual situation, not the power of a special interest check.

No response from the congressional leadership.

Last week the leadership’s selections were made public and 24 hours later one of the members selected, congressman Becerra, had leaked the fact that he had accepted a major fundraiser by a group of lobbyists at $1,500 a ticket high lighting the fact that he was on the committee that would imPACt their special interests, their budget earmarks, and their tax loopholes.

It never stops. Incredible.

And Becerra’s answer? “I will continue to do what i have to do as a member of congress. So yes, we are going to move forward.”

So exactly what is his role as a member of congress? Collect fat special interest and lobbyists and PAC checks to get re-elected?

Or to represent his district and help rebuild America?

Watch the money!!!

We challenge the leadership of the house and the senate. Let the people decide these issues at the voting booth, not the special interest cash and check booth.

It is not too late to make a statement. Ask members of the special committee to eschew lobbyists, PACS, and special interest fundraising for the duration of this term. Ideas are welcome. Contributions from the vested interests are not.

The system is institutionally corrupt. Both parties are guilty and it is getting worse.

Which leads me to something new: “SUPERPACS”.

SUPERPACS do not have to disclose the contributions received and dollar amounts are unlimited. Their only requirement is that they have to be independent of any candidate although concepts can be shared.

What a joke!!

Independent? Romney’s SUPERPACS (or does he have two?) Got a $1 million contribution from a corporation formed special for that purpose and which dissolved after the check was delivered. When word leaked out about the million, Romney reluctantly revealed the source. Why was the million dollars hidden?

Independent? The PAC is run by former chief of staff, business partners, former employees, and is funded by individuals who already have contributed the maximum amount.

This is not disclosure or independence. This is phony, shadowy, hidden, corrupt in the truest sense of the word, corrupt in every sense of the word.

And I don’t want to pick on Romney alone. He is not unique. It is revealed that governor Rick Perry has seven SUPERPACS headed by former associates, staff, and maximum operatives. Bachmann has a SUPERPACS as does Paul and Huntsman.

Don’t do it. I challenge them. Don’t do it.

Join with me and let’s give ourselves a chance to take bold, clean action to restore America and to energize the plain people of our country who fight the wars, build the roads, start the small businesses, teach the kids, and raise the families of America.

Let’s restore honesty, and faith, and transparency to this corrupt political system.

These SUPERPACS are phony. They are not independent. They are just bald-faced efforts to hide the facts of the power of the big checks from the American people. They are just special interests buying yet more influence. You don’t believe the SUPERPACS are phony in their pretending to be independent? Do you know that the candidate can attend the fundraising dinner, speak and be acknowledged, have it run by his henchman, and claim independence?

It is a joke, but a joke on our country. Don’t do it candidates. Join with me.

Still unsure about the below the surface corruption of our system? Look at the so-called banking reform of last year. Read Grethchen Morgenson in the New York Times every Sunday as she describes banking corruption, or ask a community banker in your town.

Our financial system is still not out of the woods, because “banking reform” did not eliminate too big to fail. Glass-Stegal is still dead. Goldman Sachs is still the largest political contributor in the financial sector and no one went to jail after they lied to the congress and abused their client privilege. And Obama is on wall street a month later having a huge fundraiser at $35,000 a ticket.

See how this corrupt system works? Jobs for sale. Wink and nod for change. Oh the president is a great fundraiser. Just what I’m looking for in a president — how about you?

Here is my position: in a time of crises, in a time of peril, in a time of deep uncertainty, a president must be free to lead a resurgent nation. If he must continually compromise with the special interests who own the office, bold action will never come.

So i ask my republican colleagues to limit contributions to the individual allowed amount of $2500. Accept no PAC money, no SUPERPACS money, no lobbyists working as fundraisers, no bundlers as ambassadors to be.

Let Obama raise a billion dollars from the special interests. Let him choose to be weighted down with the demands of the special interests.

We will win with fewer dollars but with greater support from the American people, because we will show them that we are truly free to lead.

I want a pledge, since you fellow candidates are pledging to everything else. Join with me and pledge that we (you) will make the reform of this institutionally corrupt system a must do during your tenure as president and that you will apply your leadership skills to achieving this goal.

Historically, this debate has always been between “disclosure” and “limits”. Liberals have weighed in on the “limits” side of the discussion, while we conservatives have questioned the constitutionality of “limits” and have argued for the sunlight of “full disclosure”.

In this election, the protection of the law has been compromised such that we have neither “limits” nor “disclosure”.

We have the worst of both worlds. We have a system that is institutionally corrupted at a time when a premium will be placed on an honest, full discussion on the best steps to take in preserving and rebuilding a great nation.

We are in danger of allowing the special interests and their PACS and their big checks to decide the outcome. This realization was the very reason that I decided to get back in the political arena to attempt to break the corrupt political—special interest system.

Some commentators have expressed the excuse that due to the recent Supreme Court rulings that money is a form of speech and is thereby protected in the first amendment, and there is nothing to be done.

These comments are in error and i believe the Supreme Court gives clear opportunity for the congress to act in a constitutional manner to provide broad limits and disclosure guidelines.

In short, congress could act if it so desires to protect our system from abuse by the special interests. The president should lead with recommendations to congress and start the process. These recommendations should include the following points:

1. Full disclosure, regardless of size of the contribution. 
2. Real time reporting, not quarterly. I recommend a 48 hour cycle beginning when the contribution is received. 
3. A prohibition against a “registered” lobbyist participating in a fundraiser. 
4. Criminal penalties for violations of the rules. This must have “bite”. 
5. Eliminate “super” PACS entirely. Full disclosure and 48 hour reporting at a minimum. 
6. Either eliminate PACS altogether or reduce their limit to be no more than the $2,500 individual limit.

I challenge my fellow republican candidates to stand with the people, the plain people, against the undue influence of the special interests and adopt these 6 rules of engagement.
This new tyranny of hidden, massive, special interest contributions is pulling America down the corrupt path of money over issues, of cash over conscience, of re-election above all other things. It has candidates for office hiding contributions, committing to legislation unseen, and forming alliances with special interests who are prospering while America is hurting.

I am the only person running for president who has been both a congressman and a governor, who has fought the crushing power of the PACS and the special interests and the institutional corruption of this political system from his first day running for office in Louisiana.

For the better part of 20 years I have been out of government as a main street banker, restructuring small businesses and putting people back to work, while not taking one penny of government bailout money.

I know the need for confident planning and the power of leadership in an uncertain world.
The challenges facing the next president are indescribable, and the worst challenge is probably not yet known.

But this i believe and it is as old as time: the president must be free to lead.

I challenge all who stand for this job, who would be taken seriously for this great venture, to send back the special interest money. To take only individual, fully disclosed contributions.
And to commit to lead on this battle against institutional corruption.

So there will be no misunderstanding or ambiguity, here I stand from day one!

• $100 limit on contributions from an individual
• No PAC contributions, only individuals
• All funds fully disclosed regardless of size.

Free to lead.

To win this election, I need a million people to stand with me and invest $100 in a free to lead president, who will build a team of republicans and independents and tea partiers and conservative democrats to cooperate in rebuilding America’s future.

We are not yet well known. We have not been on the public’s payroll for 20-years. We hope to make the next debate. We are spending weeks on end in New Hampshire to earn that right.

And when we get that far and make that debate, we will challenge the field to stand free of the special interests and put the people back to work again.

By the way, the race is wide open. You can’t pick a winner. But you can make one. Free to lead a rising America.

Secret Corporate $$$ Determining Elections

Let's End the Arms Race of Secret, Corporate Money in Our Elections
By Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation
Posted on May 19, 2011

The post-Citizens United drive for secret money is now a veritable arms race.

As a New York Times editorial recently noted, Bill Burton, former White House deputy press secretary, is leading a group called Priorities USA to “raise unlimited money from undisclosed sources to aid in the president’s re-election campaign.

While I’m sympathetic to the notion that Democrats cannot afford to cede ground in these exorbitant, no-holds-barred campaigns—as one colleague put it, “You don’t fight with one hand tied behind your back”—this isn’t news to be welcomed by pro-democracy reformers. By accepting the same opaque money they are arguing against, the Democrats’ case for campaign finance reform becomes morally ambiguous at best.

Instead, Democrats could use this moment to seize the overwhelming bipartisan sentiment across this country that we need to curb the influence of money in our elections—even 62 percent of Republican voters and 60 percent of Tea Partiers agree!

Democrats are already on record—unlike nearly every Republican—to make campaigns cleaner and more democratic. Whether supporting the DISCLOSE Act, Fair Elections Now Act, or state clean election laws, Democrats have demonstrated their commitment in rhetoric and votes. Some are even speaking out for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision granting corporations the “right” to spend unlimited money influencing elections.

Yet leadership on public financing and clean elections needs to begin at the top. President Obama’s rhetoric has been tremendous on occasion—his campaign language, response to the Citizens United decision, statements on the DISCLOSE Act—but he could also do more to forcibly push for the Fair Elections Now Act, a Presidential public financing fix, and passing the DISCLOSE Act which was defeated by a Republican filibuster.

He could immediately draw a stark contrast between the parties by signing his draft executive order requiring any company vying for a government contract to disclose details of its political giving. Not surprisingly, the GOP and its gravy train (aka Chamber of Commerce) have already gone bonkers over this little bit of sunlight, calling it “pay-to-play” politics, according to the Baltimore Sun. Seriously, let’s keep those political gifts in the dark, that way everyone will know that corporations aren’t receiving any favors in return. Say what?

This represents a canyon-wide opening for President Obama to drive home his original campaign message—remember that one—about changing the culture of Washington. Indeed the need and political opportunity for all Democrats to step up couldn’t be clearer.

Across the nation, conservative courts, Republican legislatures, and corporate front groups are attempting to reverse hard-fought pro-democracy gains. In Arizona, GOP legislative leaders and the Chamber of Commerce are pressing for a repeal of that state’s effective clean elections law, despite the fact that 79 percent of Arizonans support it. In Maine, Republican Governor Paul LePage has gone after his state’s clean election law—attempting to defund it, repeal its use in gubernatorial races, and more than tripling the private contribution limit for gubernatorial candidates. (Here’s hoping the 80 percent of Mainers who support the law have the last word.)

“The bottom line is that people want a political system that is responsive to their needs,” says Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. “Elected officials who stand in the way of that could pay a price down the line.”

The fight for campaign finance reform can’t be separated from the fight to preserve collective bargaining rights, prevent restrictive voter ID laws, and protect an already tattered safety net from an onslaught of pro-rich/anti-everyone else budgets. These fights are all about power and voice in our democracy.

“Our country’s biggest problems won’t be solved for the many if the process is fixed by the money,” says Nyhart.

Instead of traveling down the worn path of pay-to-play politics with Republicans, Democrats—led by President Obama—should double-down on the high road. Most Americans are already there waiting for them.

Outside Cash Leaves Scorched Earth in US Campaign

by Stephen Collinson - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 by Agence France-Presse

WASHINGTON — Nerve jarring music races to a crescendo, shadowy pictures flash across the screen, and in doom-laden tones, a narrator warns: "Obama -- he promised change... now he's desperate, on the attack."

This is not the inspirational candidate who moved thousands to tears at his Chicago victory party, nor the one who tilted at history with the most impressive legislative record of any Democratic president for decades.

This is President Barack Obama through the eyes of Americans for Prosperity, a group lambasted by Democrats since a Supreme Court decision opened a spigot of outside spending on next month's mid-term elections.

Expensive, bombastic political ads are hardly new to American politics -- both sides of the political aisle fling half truths and explosive claims across television screens every election season.

But Democrats, fearing heavy losses in Congress due to the sluggish economic rebound and high unemployment, are crying foul this year, after the Court rulings dismantled a raft of restrictions on corporate spending.

Independent groups -- not openly linked to the political parties -- can now suck up unlimited corporate cash, and spill it on elections, without revealing the source of their largesse.

Conservative groups currently dominate the spending binge -- profiting from Republican grass roots anger over the Obama administration ahead of November 2 polls in which Democrats fear heavy losses.

The Americans For Prosperity ad is, in fact, a riposte to Obama's own claims that no one knows who the group is or how it is financed.

"Who is he afraid of? Americans For Prosperity? People like you?" the hard-hitting ad run by the activist group says.

Research by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending, shows conservative independent groups have splashed out $25.8 million on advertising since September 1, compared to $5.6 million by liberal groups.

Detractors argue that the benign names of some groups, like Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Job Security and Working America belie the nakedly partisan nature of their advertising.

"You know, they call themselves 'Americans for Apple Pie' or 'Moms for Motherhood' -- and then they use their voice to drown out yours," Obama quipped in September.

Under campaign finance laws, corporations or individuals are limited in how much they can give each candidate -- but since the Supreme Court ruling, there are no such curbs on how much a group can spend on ads under its own banner.

This Democrats say, is unfair and means big corporations can remain anonymous and swamp the voice of the average voter at the polls.

Republicans charge corporations as well as individuals have a right to free speech, and point to heavy labor union financing of Democratic campaigns.

In Nevada, Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is desperately trying to cling on to his seat, against Republican Sharron Angle, a favorite of the conservative Tea Party movement.

American Crossroads, a group for which former George W. Bush political guru Karl Rove raises money, has stepped in with a hard-hitting ad.

Shots of the Democratic veteran are juxtaposed with a lacerating script: "Bailouts, deficits, Obamacare... haven't you done enough?"

Though such ads steal headlines, David Damore, a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas said the group's work on the Republican ground game may actually have more impact than the air war.

"Rove's group is doing a lot of turnout -- there is a real Republican disadvantage (in that area) in the state right now," Damore said.

Some experts believe independent groups may be most effective in House races where electorates are smaller and a sudden cash boost can tilt the scales.

In Virginia, Democrat Rick Boucher is in danger of losing a seat he has held for years. He is known as a conservative Democrat but Americans for Job Security is shackling him to House speaker Nancy Pelosi, a hate figure for Republicans.

"Boucher has failed to protect our jobs -- now it is time Rick Boucher loses his," an ad says.

AJS describes itself on its website as an "independent, bi-partisan, pro-business issue advocacy organization" but does not disclose donors, saying its membership could be misinterpreted by politicians or the media.

In its counter attack, the White House has highlighted the reports that the US Chamber of Commerce, which leans Republican, has used funds from foreign funds for electoral campaigning.

The Chamber denies the charges, but the White House is demanding proof.

Rove has also weighed in: "This is a desperate and I think disturbing trend by the president of the United States to tar his political adversaries with some kind of enemies list," he told Fox News Sunday.

Campaign Finance Reform: R.I.P?

by Kenneth P. Vogel - Wednesday, October 13, 2010 by Politico.com

For four decades, advocates for stricter campaign finance rules have been on a long, slow march to make big money in politics less important and more transparent.

Now, in 2010, they are seeing the results: Never in modern political history has there been so much secret money gushing into an American election.

By Election Day, independent groups will have aired more than $200 million worth of campaign ads using cash that can’t be traced back to its original source, predicts Fred Wertheimer, president of the non-profit group Democracy 21.

“And this is just the beginning,” Wertheimer said. “Unless we get some changes here to mitigate this problem, I would expect we will see $500 million or more in 2012.”

For Wertheimer, and the other lobbyists, lawyers and academics who push for tougher campaign cash restrictions and often refer to themselves as “the reform community,” this year’s election is not merely a disappointment.

There have been plenty of those in the years since their movement took off amid the abuses of the Nixon era. But always in the past reformers have been able to keep faith that, whatever setbacks they faced, their cause was on a gradual path to victory.

This year feels more like a repudiation of their lives’ work. And it has raised two basic questions that strike at the very core of the ethos of the campaign-finance reform effort: Can the flow of money into elections be limited if the courts have deemed political giving and spending a First Amendment right? Can any system of rules to make money more transparent ever keep up with the legal devices that powerful interests use to keep their influence hidden?

“This is a low point for the campaign finance reform movement – I’ve never seen it lower,” said Craig Holman, a leading campaign finance lobbyist for Public Citizen, a non-profit group that has played a role in most major legal and legislative fights on the issue since the Watergate scandal of the mid-1970s.

“We’re not faring well today. At this point, we’re looking to monitor the level of chaos and scandal that is going to happen in the 2010 general election to try to bring life back into the reform movement going into 2012.”

For their antagonists, conservatives such as columnist George Will who have long derided campaign finance restrictions as unnecessary meddling in the political process, it’s a heady time in which their side is winning the day in the courts, regulatory agencies and even Congress.

“It’s no secret that the reformers are on the run – they’ve gotten pounded in the courts and also have not been very successful legislatively,” said Brad Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, a non-profit that opposes many campaign regulations and that has had a hand in several recent important court cases striking down such rules.

Only a decade ago, the campaign finance movement achieved one of its greatest victories: the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which reformers saw as a foundation they would build upon in the years ahead.

The act, which came to be known as McCain-Feingold for its Senate sponsors,Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, was the most sweeping overhaul of campaign finance rules since a suite of reforms enacted after Watergate.
McCain-Feingold prohibited national party committees from accepting huge so-called soft money donations, set new rules barring coordination of big-money advertising campaigns between candidates and outside groups, enacted a so-called “millionaire’s amendment” granting special fund-raising privileges to candidates running against self-funders, and barred corporations and unions from airing hard-hitting issue-based ads known as electioneering communications in close proximity to Election Day.

The law – and major pieces of the precedent upon which it was based – is now in shambles, with reformers left clinging to its last remaining major pillar, the ban on soft money, which was upheld by a lower court this year but is expected to be the subject of future challenges.

The electioneering communication provision and millionaire’s amendment have been wiped away by a Supreme Court that became reliably skeptical of campaign finance regulation with former President George W. Bush’s appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the court.

The reconstituted court also struck down some significant older case law that was the foundation for not only parts of McCain-Feingold, but the broader campaign finance reform movement.

Meanwhile, the Federal Election Commission, which has been gripped by partisan deadlock, has – in the opinion of reformers – woefully failed to enforce the remaining pieces of McCain-Feingold and other campaign finance laws.

And McCain and Feingold, once hailed as post-partisan saviors of the political system, have struggled just to stay in the Senate.

Feingold faces an uphill battle against a novice opponent, who – perhaps ironically – has been the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads attacking Feingold that would have been prohibited had McCain-Feingold remained intact.

McCain was able to ward of a primary challenger, but only after spending more than $20 million in the process, and he has largely turned his back on the campaign finance movement.

In fact, what McCain-Feingold may best be remembered for was the way it kick-startedthe opposition.

“Our side – the pro-speech side – has had a good run over the last five or six years and a big part of that was that we got more serious after McCain-Feingold,” says Smith, a former Republican appointee to the FEC.

Smith formed his group to support legal, legislative and regulatory challenges to campaign finance rules, while two existing groups – the Institute for Justice and Indiana attorney James Bopp’s James Madison Center for Free Speech – stepped up their fights on the issue.

Their basic argument: that some restrictions on political giving and spending impede the flow of ideas in public debates and unconstitutionally infringe on free speech rights.

And, though the three groups still have far less cash at their disposal than their adversaries in the reform community, they have seen their budgets rise over the last few years as major conservative funders have gotten behind their movement. They reported a combined $17 million in grants last year, including backing from the deep-pocketed Lynde and Henry Bradley Foundation, which gave them $815,000 from 2006 to 2009.

While the Supreme Court’s sweeping January ruling in a case called Citizens United v.Federal Election Commission has gotten most of the attention in media accounts seeking to explain the new Wild West-like campaign finance environment, Smith and his allies have been on the march for years, racking up a series of lower-profile victories that set the stage for the momentum swing in their battle with reformers.

In 2007, the Supreme Court – in a 5-4 ruling in a case won by Bopp on behalf of a Wisconsin non-profit group that opposes abortion rights – took a chunk out of McCain-Feingold’s electioneering communications restrictions.

In March of this year, Smith’s group and the Institute for Justice won a unanimous decision from a federal appeals court striking down limits on individual contributions to independent groups that want to explicitly urge a vote for or against a candidate.

The ruling, which fleshed out the impact of the Citizens United decision and paved the way for a new breed of political group dubbed Super PACs, was buttressed by a pair of opinions from the FEC, where Smith’s side also has increasingly gotten its way.

But by far their biggest victory – and the most devastating loss for reformers –was the high court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United, which overturned as unconstitutional previous rulings upholding laws prohibiting corporations and, by extension, unions, from spending their general funds on campaign ads.

The rulings cleared corporations and unions to launch expensive ad campaigns boosting or attacking candidates. While Democratic-leaning big labor has adjusted its election strategy to take advantage of the new rules, it hasn’t invested substantially more money in its campaign efforts – certainly not when compared to the raft of GOP-allied non-profit groups that have rushed to action post-Citizens United.

Among those groups taking advantage of the new landscape have been American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS, for short), linked groups that were conceived in part by uber-GOP operative Karl Rove that are set-up as a Super PACs and a non-profit incorporated under Section 501(c)4 of the tax code, respectively.

Reformers and top Democrats have increasingly complained that groups registered under Section 501(c) – most notably Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is registered under Section 501(C)6 – are either violating the tax code, nefariously hiding their donors or both.

“What’s happening right before our eyes is a blatant attempt by outside interest groups using secret money to buy a Congress that will serve their interests at the expense of the American people,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told POLITICO.

Van Hollen sponsored a White House-backed bill intended to blunt the impact of Citizens United, which passed the House, but failed last month in the Senate. Reformers, who have complained that Obama hasn’t done enough to salvage the campaign finance regime, are pushing for another try in the lame duck session, but the bill’s prospects appear dim.

David Magleby, a Brigham Young University political science professor who has studied independent political ads and efforts to regulate them, sees this year’s escalated ad war as part of an oft-repeated pattern.

In reaction to new rules, new avenues for steering money into politics are developed, which in turn prompt legal challenges from the industry and sometimes new rules from Congress and regulators. And the process starts over again.

Political scandals occasionally punctuate the cycle, prompting more significant reforms, according to Magleby, who said “it took the Watergate scandal to kind of get the attention of the public and Congress.”

In response, Congress in 1974 created the FEC and a system for publicly financing presidential campaigns, and also enacted strict limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, the latter of which was quickly struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

McCain-Feingold got boosts from both the Clinton fundraising controversies of the 1990s and the Enron scandal and accompanying public scrutiny of corporate relationships with government.

And, most recently, Congress in 2007, motivated partly by the Jack Abramoff scandal, enacted a suite of lobbying and campaign finance reforms, including a bundling disclosure provision that Obama has cited as the top achievement of his brief Senate career.

Activists like Wertheimer, who worked on the post-Watergate reforms and is consideredthe dean of the reform community, believe it will taken another scandal to once again change the political climate, given that the FEC and the Supreme Court seem stacked against their side, and Congress, which hasn’t demonstrated the political will necessary to tighten campaign finance laws, could become even less eager to consider reforms if Republicans retake one or both chambers.

But, Wertheimer added, he has no doubt that “we’re headed into a period of major national scandal based on a sea change in the way our elections are being funded and influenced that is going to set the stage for new battles over reform.”

But even if that happens, according to former FEC chairman Trevor Potter, who heads a reform group called the Campaign Legal Center, heightened corporate spending is likely a permanent development in the campaign landscape.

“This election is showing that (anonymously contributed) money can in fact be spent and thus it will become the norm,” said Potter, a former McCain advisor who – along with Wertheimer – helped craft McCain-Feingold. “People who, going into this cycle, weren’t sure about it, will now know that they can spend it and will start to raise it earlier, have higher targets. This is a roadmap to the future.”

Cash You Can Believe In

Washington and Change
By MICHAEL WINSHIP

"Somebody once said the Washington was a city of Northern charm and Southern efficiency." So John F. Kennedy famously remarked in 1961 and so the town seemed to remain when I first moved there in 1969 to go to school.

Clerks in dusty stores moved with the majestic inertia of tall ships becalmed. You could count the number of good restaurants on the fingers of one hand -- okay, maybe two hands. There was a rendering plant on the south side of K Street that turned animal carcasses into glue; when the wind blew the wrong way, the awful smell brought tears to the eyes of those who lived and shopped along the fashionable lanes of Georgetown.

There were still "temporary" buildings on the National Mall that had been there since the end of World War I, filled with government workers. But any citizen could freely walk the corridors of Congress, enter a member’s office to leave an opinion or pick up a pass for the visitors’ galleries of the House or Senate, ride that little subway that runs underneath the Capitol. No campaign contributions required.

Or so it seemed to a white, middle class college kid. Washington also was a city in decline. Not quite a year and a half had passed since the three days of riots that followed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. Thirteen people had died, more than a thousand were hurt, and you could still see piles of rubble and burned out storefronts. Hundreds of businesses had been damaged or destroyed.

Robert Reich -- the new chairman of the non-partisan, citizens’ lobby Common Cause -- remembers DC in those days, too. He interned for Bobby Kennedy and later at the Federal Trade Commission. Then the capital changed. By the time Reich became President Clinton’s Secretary of Labor in 1993, poverty was still rampant in the city but much of it had been shoved beyond the sightlines of the rich and powerful. "Washington was much fancier," he recalled. "It almost glittered --the hotels and the bistros and the restaurants -- and the money."

Speaking at Common Cause’s 40th anniversary dinner on October 6, Reich noted:

"It’s even wealthier today. You walk around Washington and you see what it is and that money is here for one reason. It may go into the hands of people who are lawyers and public relations people and lobbyists but it is here for one reason and that is to influence our democracy. We have never seen in American history as much money flowing to our nation’s capitol. This election that is coming up is an election in which for the first time that I can remember there are hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to candidates and we have no way of knowing who is providing this money at all. Complete, absolute secrecy."

Kenneth Vogel at the website Politico.com echoes Reich:

"Never in modern political history has there been so much secret money gushing into an American election. By Election Day, independent groups will have aired more than $200 million worth of campaign ads using cash that can’t be traced back to its original source, predicts Fred Wertheimer, president of the non-profit group Democracy 21. 'And this is just the beginning,' Wertheimer said. 'Unless we get some changes here to mitigate this problem, I would expect we will see $500 million or more in 2012.'"

This year "has raised two basic questions that strike at the very core of the ethos of the campaign-finance reform effort: Can the flow of money into elections be limited if the courts have deemed political giving and spending a First Amendment right? Can any system of rules to make money more transparent ever keep up with the legal devices that powerful interests use to keep their influence hidden?"

This is not just the fault of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, although it has unleashed vast new sums of cash into the system – compare this year’s elections with the midterms of four years ago. Nor is it yet because of foreign money attempting to influence elections although, Karl Rove and the US Chamber of Commerce’s denials to the contrary, this is a clear and present danger. And true, it’s not solely because of deep corporate pockets that Democrats seem to be headed toward a significant setback in three weeks; a still faltering economy and lack of jobs are giving them a brutal slapping around.

But the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act has been eviscerated by the courts and what’s left of it is barely enforced by the Federal Election Commission. The same goes for various provisions of the Federal tax code, which need not only stricter enforcement but beefing up.

The October 12 Washington Post editorialized:

"Nonprofit advocacy groups, known as 501(c)(4)s, are permitted to engage in political advocacy as long as that is not their primary purpose. Meanwhile, these groups do not have to reveal the identities of their donors. IRS regulations bar such organizations from 'direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office,' but as a practical matter, these limits have not made much difference.

"One such Republican-leaning group, American Crossroads GPS, has touted its ability to keep donor names confidential even as it runs ads in key races. Similarly, trade associations such as the Chamber of Commerce, organized under section 501(c)(6) of the tax code, are not required to disclose donors and are permitted even greater leeway to engage in political activity."

Unfortunately, while the voting public expresses concern over campaign spending, it’s not very high on their agenda; most believe it will take an outrage such as Watergate, or at least another Jack Abramoff influence peddling-type scandal to get reform back on the tracks.

Campaign finance reform has been a goal of the organization Common Cause since it was founded in 1970 by the great John Gardner, a Republican.

My friend and colleague Bill Moyers ended their anniversary dinner last week with a call to action, invoking the memory of Gardner and another prominent member of the GOP:

"The founder of Common Cause was a prophet in seeing money as the dagger directed at the heart of democracy. Like his fellow Republican Teddy Roosevelt, he opposed the 'naked robbery' of the public’s trust. A century ago, in one of the most powerful speeches in American political history, Roosevelt said: 'It is not a partisan issue; it is more than a political issue; it is a great moral issue. If we condone political theft, if we do not resent the kinds of wrong and injustice that injuriously affect the whole nation, not merely our democratic form of government but our civilization itself cannot endure.'"

Moyers concluded, "The only way to defeat organized money is with organized people. Now it's your turn."

Campaign Finance Reformers Facing Major Political, Legal Obstacles

by Andrew Kreighbaum | Wednesday, September 1, 2010 by Open Secrets Blog

This has not been a kind year for campaign finance reformers.

Setting aside the now-famous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling from the Supreme Court, which allowed corporations and unions to spend freely on campaign advertisements, there has been a flurry of challenges to other campaign finance laws in the courts.

Although several of these challenges were filed before the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United, that decision encouraged opponents of campaign finance reform to push their challenges even further, according to experts on campaign finance cases.

These ongoing lawsuits have challenged three broad sections of campaign finance law: corporate spending restrictions, public financing of candidates and disclosure laws.

Supporters of reform have seen some success against challenges to restrictions on soft money contributions. But public funding for candidates has been stymied in several cases, even in the middle of campaign season.

Campaign finance legal experts say that disclosure laws are the least vulnerable to challenges in the courts.

“It’s sort of been a lot of clouds with some silver lining for campaign finance reformers,” said Tara Malloy, associate counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, in reference to success in disclosure cases. The Campaign Legal Center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that provides analysis of a campaign legal issues and government ethics.

On other corporate spending cases, the rulings have been mixed. In Republican National Commitee v. Federal Election Commission, the same court that decided Citizens United reaffirmed a lower court’s ruling that upheld a law banning “soft money” contributions to political parties.

Other cases, such as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, gave groups the green light to raise unlimited sums from individuals for independent expenditure committees -- a subtle difference from the Citizens United case, which involved only independent expenditures funded from corporate treasuries. The same issue is at play in Thalheimer v. San Diego, which touches upon restrictions for both corporate money and large donations from individuals for independent expenditures.

And recent lower court rulings in Connecticut, Arizona and Florida overturned parts of the states’ systems of public financing, targeting the trigger mechanisms that sent state dollars to a publicly funded candidate if an opponent’s spending passed a certain threshold.

Loyola College of Law professor Rick Hasen, who runs ElectionLawBlog.com, is part of the team defending the city of San Diego in the Thalheimer v. San Diego case. He said the case is part of a wider plan by opponents of campaign finance laws to weaken regulations in the wake of Citizens United.

Hasen specifically called out attorney Jim Bopp, who has argued for many high-profile campaign finance cases, including Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission and Citizens United before it got to the Supreme Court.

“There’s no mystery to what’s going on,” Hasen said. “These groups have seen Citizens United as an opening to challenge a variety of campaign finance laws to try to push the courts in a deregulatory direction.”

Bopp, however, told OpenSecrets Blog that he is not undertaking a major effort to overturn campaign finance law -- he just represents many clients who frequently run up against laws that prevent them from speaking about public policy decisions.

“It’s just naturally part of my practice that these controversies would arise because of the nature of the clients that I have,” he said.

He agreed the Citizens United ruling made campaign finance laws vulnerable to more challenges.

“We always seek to apply the current state of the law to any challenges of campaign finance law that we make,” he said.

Bopp is also involved in cases challenging disclosure laws for groups supporting gay rights-related ballot measures in Maine and California. He is further involved in a Vermont case challenging the state’s classification of a group opposing abortion rights as a political action committee.

Members of Congress have attempted to adopt responses to the changing legal landscape of campaign finance with the DISCLOSE Act, which would add new reporting requirements for independent expenditures, and the Fair Elections Now Act, a voluntary public financing program that would dole out federal campaign funds to candidates who raise enough small-amount donations in their home state.

So far, such efforts have stalled.

The Fair Elections Now Act has not made it out of committee. And while the House passed the DISCLOSE Act in June, Republican senators have so far blocked it in Congress’ upper chamber.

In challenges such as Doe v. Reed, another Bopp case, litigants have turned to battling disclosure law as well.

The Doe v. Reed case resolves around whether the names of financial supporters of a ballot initiative to block domestic partnership rights in Washington state should be made public or not.

The Supreme Court earlier this year rejected Bopp’s arguments that all ballot measure petition-signers had the right to have their names kept secret, as OpenSecrets Blog previously reported. The high court left open the possibility that these particular ballot measure petition-signers might have that ability, however, and the case is still being litigated in lower courts.

“They might just now be turning to disclosure because sadly now that is what’s left,” said Malloy, of the Campaign Legal Center.

Among the cases currently still pending before the Supreme Court is McComish v. Bennett, which challenged Arizona’s public financing mechanism.

In May, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s “trigger provision” was constitutional. But a month later, the Supreme Court issued an unusual stay in the case. The decision changed the state’s election laws mid-race while the court decides whether or not to take up the case.

“It’s not clear whether or not the Supreme Court is done with its deregulatory project,” Malloy said.