Is the USA Still a Democracy?

Former President Jimmy Carter made an important statement on the Thom Hartmann radio program July 27. Asked about the effects of the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions that have opened the political process up to unlimited secret campaign contributions, Carter said the United States is becoming an oligarchy. Hear his comments here.
 
 Here is the text of the exigent part of the interview.

HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. … Your thoughts on that?

CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.

This follows a recent New York Times story that found more than half the $388 million raised by the Republican candidates for president in June came from just 130 families and their businesses.

Make a Difference: Call the White House

One of the greatest threats to our democratic system is the presence of unlimited and untraceable special interest campaign cash. It's a theme I've returned to often in these pages. I also address the subject in detail in chapter 14 of my book, Liberally Thinking. The goals of the plutocrats are twofold. First, they wish to make candidates dependent upon their "contributions" to gain and hold their elected seats. This also serves to render the politicians pliable to supporting legislation or executive actions that cater to the special interests' priorities rather than those that would serve the general public interest. Issues like wages and environmental concerns come readily to mind.

Second, by removing  any spending restraints and keeping their political spending secret, they assiduously work to propagandize the electorate to support their corporate or personal agenda against the public's own interest. They turn an election, which is supposed to be a contest of votes, where they are weak, into a contest of money, where they are strong. By flooding the media with one message, they drown out countervailing views. This is the essence of the effect of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Now there is something you can do that can make a difference on this. Daily Kos sent out an email today appealing for people to call the White House to register their opinion on the matter, and to ask President Obama to issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose an all their political spending. He can do this without congressional approval. To get the message out, click on this link. It will take you to the Daily Kos page instructing you how to call the White House and what to say to urge the president's action.

Disclosure can make a difference. In 2010, California Proposition 23, sponsored by Valero Oil, Tesoro Oil and Koch Industries, would have gutted the state's climate change efforts. Oil companies outspent their political opponents 20-1 in the campaign, but because of the Golden State's strict disclosure requirements, the people knew whose money was behind the advertising and weren't fooled. Prop 23 lost by 2.2 million votes.   

So give it a try. It's a way you can help to have an impact on a matter that is vital to preserving fairness and balance in the democratic process.

Don't Buy from the Kochs

You may have heard of the Koch brothers. Charles and David Koch (pronounced like “coke”) are heirs to one of the largest fortunes in the world.  Koch Industries, which began in oil refining and branched out into a diversified conglomerate, earns revenue in excess of a hundred billion dollars a year.  Company founder Fred Koch was an early member of the John Birch Society, an ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorist organization.  The Koch's network of foundations gives hundreds of millions a year to Republican, Libertarian and Tea Party causes, think tanks and candidates, with such goals as destroying workers’ union rights, gutting consumer protections, rolling back environmental safeguards, privatizing Medicare and Social Security and repealing Obamacare.  

The recent Citizens United  and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions have greatly amplified the amount of political influence peddling their organizations can do.  The last thing a Democrat or progressive person should want to do is buy products that make the Kochs even richer so they can contribute even more to right-wing causes.  The link below will take you to a list of Koch Industries consumer products.  You can help the cause simply by not buying these items. 

Koch Industries consumer brands.

Support Senate Joint Resolution 19

I was dismayed when the conservative-majority Supreme Court made the Citizens United ruling in 2010.  By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that laws against corporations and unions using their general treasury funds to run ads for or against candidates were unconstitutional.  I was very unhappy at the prospect of their overwhelming the system with untraceable money spent in a fashion calculated to make our elected officials even more beholden to corporate interests and the plutocracy than so many already are.  The reality of the practice has not assuaged my misgivings in the least.  In 2012, 32 wealthy individuals gave as much to the Obama and Romney campaign super-pacs as the 3.7 million small donors who supported either candidate. 

If you feel the same way I do, there may now be something you can do about this.  I received a response email from the office of one of my senators, Dianne Feinstein, detailing a move to overturn Citizens United.  Here is part of what she wrote:

You may be pleased to know that I am a cosponsor of  S.J.Res . 19, introduced by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) on June 18, 2013.   This measure would amend the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns, including by corporations engaging in so-called independent expenditures through outside groups like Super-PACs.  It would also allow states to regulate campaign financing in state elections in the same way.  S.J.Res . 19 is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Go to the full letter.

A constitutional amendment can be a long, drawn out process, but there is no surer safeguard against such abuses than putting them in the constitution itself.  The popular support is there to effect change if people push for it.  A 2013 Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans, 50 percent to 44 percent, would support a law to ban all private funding of federal campaigns and replace them with a publicly-financed system.  A 2012 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll of 1,000 likely voters found that 62 percent oppose the Citizens United decision.  So far, eleven states and 350 municipalities have passed resolutions against the ruling, and 40 senators have registered their disapproval.

Take this opportunity to get in touch with your senators and your congressional representative to let them know you support Senate Joint Resolution 19.  Ask them how they stand on it.  Let's start taking some influence back from the well-heeled few.   
    

Congressional Climate Denial

Global temperatures have been warmer than average for 341 consecutive months.   97% of climate scientists agree the earth's temperature is warming and that human activities are the primary cause.  Even so, an  article in Think Progress finds that 57% of Republicans in congress have made a public statement either denying that climate change is happening or that humans have anything to do with it.


What's more,  the denial pays.  Think Progress figures show that climate deniers in the House receive an average of $241,000 in contributions from dirty energy companies while non-deniers get $69,000 from them.  That's better than a three-and-a-half-to-one spread.  The disparity is even more pronounced, over four-to-one in the Senate, where climate deniers average $699,000 from dirty energy contributions and non-deniers get $171,000. 

The Sierra Club Magazine produced a graphic to display the political landscape reported on in Think Progress.   I've included it below.

 

As you can see, the House of Representatives has 200 Democrats, and every last one of them accepts the findings of climate science.  Of the 233 Republicans in the House, 128 (55%) are known climate deniers.  The Senate is even worse.  The 52 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with them (Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine) are all climate realists.  But 30 of the 46 Senate Republicans (65%) are deniers.  And when it comes to the GOP congressional leadership, the opacity is nearly absolute.  Think Progress reports 90% of them are on the denial bandwagon.          

Montanans Vote to Abolish Corporate Personhood

Missoula is the second largest city in Montana and home to the University of Montana.  According to the 2010 census, the county seat of Missoula County is home to 66,788 people in the city limits, with a total of 109,299 if you count the "Missoula Metropolitan Area."  (Click here to go to Missoula's official website.)  Situated at 3,209 feet and located at the conjunction of five mountain ranges, Missoula is also called the "Hub of Five Valleys" and even the "Garden City" for its relatively mild climate.  Founded in 1860 as a wagon trail trading post, Missoula shares an independent streak with most Big Sky state residents and indeed, with most Westerners in general.  Thus, a recent ballot referendum there really caught my eye.

In the November 8, 2011 municipal election the good citizens there voted almost three to one to declare that a corporation does not have the same rights as a human being.  According to the Office of Elections, the vote was 10,729 to 3,605, or 74.85% to 25.15%.  City Councilwoman Cynthia Wolken placed the referendum before the council in August, reporting that her constituents had an "overwhelming sense of despair about government."  As she was knocking on doors, people kept expressing their view that, "A lot of people feel that what they say doesn't matter, because somebody with more money will come along and drown out their voices."  They were particularly resentful of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which declared corporations have free speech rights and the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money without attribution for political purposes.  Read the Missoulian newspaper article on it here.

The corporate personhood resolution builds its case with declarations of principle such as:

WHEREAS, corporations are not and have never been human beings, and therefore are rightfully subservient to human beings and governments as our legal creations, ...

and:

WHEREAS, the recent Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision that rolled back the legal limits on corporate spending in the electoral process creates an unequal playing field and allows unlimited corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection, policy decisions and sway votes, and forces elected officials to divert their attention from The Peoples’ business, or even vote against the interest of their human constituents, in order to raise competitive campaign funds for their own re-election, ...

It concludes with a call for action:

"The citizens of Missoula, Montana, hereby urge the Montana State Legislature and United States Congress to amend the United States Constitution to clearly state that
corporations are not human beings and do not have the same rights as citizens."

Click here to read the entire text of the Missoula corporate personhood resolution.
 
A group called the Move to Amend Coalition is attempting to spread this message and movement across the country.  Click on this link to go to their site.

Supreme Court Blocks Arizona Clean Money Campaign

It was bad enough when the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that corporate money could be spent on political speech without limits. But now it has really gone over the line in issuing an immediate stay against Arizona's 10-year-old campaign finance system.

Though I don't agree with the first ruling, I can understand it. If you grant that a corporation is a "person" entitled to First Amendment protection and that society has no interest in trying to maintain fairness in political campaigns (two very big ifs) then I can see where the conservative court majority is coming from. They say you can't restrict advertising from any quarter.

Yesterday's intervention in Arizona's clean money system is a different animal altogether. Before even hearing the case, they issued an emergency order to prevent the state from disbursing matching funds to candidates already entitled to it under existing law in the middle of a campaign. Somehow they seem to feel that "First Amendment free speech rights of wealthy or well-heeled candidates are violated when extra money flows to their opponents." The Arizona system results in a greater amount and more balanced speech, not less. And talk about "judicial activism." Governor Jan Brewer, who had $1.4 million in matching funding pulled from her by the ruling after her primary opponent Buz Mills had already spent over $2 million, lamented, "It is extremely unusual for the judicial branch to change the rules of an election while it is being held."

The current court is more and more brazenly favoring corporations and the wealthy over any and all attempts to level the playing field. This shows how crucial appointments to the high court truly are. Without a countervailing check soon, America is headed ever more inexorably toward an unabashed plutocracy.

I have two digressions to make here at the end. First, you might have noticed I have had to go to moderated comments recently. I started to get comments with links to pornographic sites and I want no part of that kind of stuff in my blog. So please go ahead and post, but just be aware that I'll have to take a look at it and approve it before it appears. Secondly, yes, I was elected to the Democratic County Central Committee in Tuesday's election. Many thanks to everyone who gave me your vote, your encouragement or recommended me to your friends. I will work to be worthy of your trust.