Winning Progressive

(A note from Winning Progressive – Joanne’s post about the growing movement to amend the Constitution in order to free our democracy from the unlimited spending of billionaires and big corporations is especially timely given that President Obama just signaled support for such an effort.  In particular, the President said a few days ago that “I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”  We couldn’t agree more).

(By Joanne Boyer, cross-posted at Wisdom Voices)

“We are at a movement moment in history, said David Cobb, National Projects Director of Democracy Unlimited and lead speaker on the Midwest Barnstorming Tour of Move To Amend.Cobb’s stop in Edina, Minnesota, Sunday drew a packed crowd of well over 100 people on a glorious summer Sunday afternoon. “We are at a point where people are engaged and ready to take back control, and these are exciting times because it’s time for us to do what other movements have done in the course of history and say ‘this is our country.’”

Move To Amend is a coalition of hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of individuals committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, not corporate interests. Cobb’s Midwest Barnstorming tour is focused on getting individuals at the local level to become involved with the monumental – but doable – task of amending the U.S. Constitution in wake of the horrific U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision that allowed unlimited corporate money to flow into political campaigns.The tour continues this week with stops throughout Wisconsin and culminates this weekend in Milwaukee with the Midwest Regional Convergence.Information on specific tour stops and the weekend gathering can be found here.

Anyone can go to Move To Amend’s web site and sign their petition that says: We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

But for those lucky enough to be on the Barnstorming tour stop, Cobb’s artful and engaging presentation offers those in attendance an invaluable history lesson on the role of corporations in U.S. history, dating back to that famous tea party in Boston, when colonists threw overboard only one kind of tea – tea from the East India Company, the major British corporation of its time.

“If we spend some time studying history and digging deeper, we’ll find that the American Revolution was not just a rejection of a monarchy, but also a people’s rebellion against the illegal corporation of its time,” Cobb said.

Cobb reminds the audience that the colonies were actually set up as “charters” with an appointed royal governor (CEO) who was tasked with the legal responsibility to plant crops, to rule and to govern in the name of the king so as to benefit the king and the other “stock holders” of, for example, the Massachusetts Bay Company.

“Let’s not forget,” Cob said, “that it was the unfair laws being written by Parliament – a Parliament that was 100 percent invested in stock in the East India Company that led to the American Revolution.What caused the colonists to stop groveling to the king, asking the king to become more socially responsible?It was the magic of the social movement of its time.

“Today, there is justifiable anger again in the United States.I call it righteous anger and I use that word carefully, because I am the grandson of a Baptist preacher.Righteous anger only comes from anger over injustice or exploitation and it requires action.Righteous anger is what provoked the abolitionist movement, it’s what helped the women come together in Seneca Falls, and it was what was behind the trade unions and the civil rights movements.And we are at that moment again.

“It’s what transforms your anger into joy, helping create a society with a just system.That’s a joyful experience…working in solidarity with good men and women who share those values.You don’t just stay angry when you engage in the work of change.”

And what work there is to be done.Amending the constitution is no easy task, but as Cobb reminds the audience, 500 years ago, people believed in the “sovereign” authority of a king to declare how society was run. “500 years ago that’s all there was, and 500 years is nothing more than a blink of an eye (in terms of history),” Cobb said.“When people say it’s too hard (amending the constitution), they haven’t been paying attention to history.Profound changes happen when people commit to change.People started acting and thinking differently in the colonies and things changed.If it’s true that they (the power elite of today) have hijacked our country, then we need to think and act differently today.And we are starting to do that.”

Cobb concludes his presentation by reminding people it was a supreme act of judicial activism that allowed 5 individuals to tell 300 million people that corporations are people.  “It was an illogical and stupid idea,” Cobb said.  “Corporate personhood is how the ruling elite stole the country from us and they used our legal system to legitimize the theft.  It’s time for us to do what other movements have done and say, ‘This is our country.’

“At Move To Amend, we’re making a demand in the form of a constitutional amendment.  We are saying two things: One, abolish the concept that corporations have constitutional rights.  That’s why principled conservatives are willing to join us.  Only human beings have constitutional rights.  And second, money is not speech.  That’s something the courts created.  Wealthy people do not have more rights to speech than anyone else.”

How can individuals affect change and be part of the social movement underway?There’s no better way to start than by perusing the Move To Amend web site, digging into their FAQs, signing the petition and getting involved with a local chapter of Move To Amend.And, always feel free to say, “No, that’s not true” to anyone who says, “Corporations are people, my friend.”

For this weekend’s reading list, we have reports on the battle between nuns and the Vatican over the meaning of Catholicism, how to improve elections through better ballot design, the failures of for-profit colleges, private prison companies pushing for laws that increase and lengthen prison sentences, and how a small wealthy elite are trying to use SuperPACs to buy our democracy.

American Sisters Haven’t Strayed.  The Vatican Has – an argument that it is the increasingly conservative aging bishops in the Vatican who are straying from Catholic teachings far more than American nuns who are fighting for social justice have.

Better Design, Better Elections - a report from the Brennan Center for Justice on how better design of ballots, voter instructions, and voting machines could help reduce the nearly 400,000 votes that were discarded in the 2008 and 2010 elections combined due to technical errors.

For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success – the report on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions’ two year investigation into for-profit colleges, and how they are shortchanging their students even as they received nearly $32 billion in federal aid in 2011.

Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies – a report on how private, for-profit prison companies are using campaign contributions and millions of dollars in lobbying to support policies that will lead to more and longer prison sentences and, therefore, more profit for private prison companies.

Million-Dollar Megaphones: SuperPACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections – an in-depth look at the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars of secret outside cash is being funneled by a small number of obscenely wealthy people through SuperPACs in an attempt to buy our democracy.

(Winning Progressive is happy to introduce everyone to our newest contributor, Joanne Boyer.  Joanne is a Minneapolis-based writer, publisher and speaker, and author of the book “Wisdom of Progressive Voices.” You can read more about Joanne online at wisdomvoices.com.)

By Joanne Boyer, cross-posted at Wisdom Voices

If you think the insanity of money spent on political races is at an all time high, you are correct.  In the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, many believed that the unlimited amount of money pouring into political campaigns would be “over the top.”  But even those “in the know” are finding the spending frenzy amazing.

Take the Wisconsin state senate recall elections that came to a dramatic close on August 9.  Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a nonpartisan group tracking the flow of money in Badger state politics, said, “This is so out of whack from everything we’ve ever seen.” On the weekend before the recall elections were held, it was estimated that nearly $31 million (that’s right, $31 million for state senate races) was spent.  That compares with $3.75 million for the entire slate of all Wisconsin senate races in 2010.

That’s just one example of what Citizens United unleashed.  The same scenario is being repeated across the country and serves as a harbinger of what to expect on a national level in 2012.  One wonders if the electoral system can sustain itself with this type of financial lunacy at play.

Campaign Finance Reform.  The end of Citizens United.  Those two phrases cannot be repeated enough by those concerned with our democracy.  In a nutshell, Citizens United (in a sharply divided 5-4 ruling) decided that the American people are powerless to stop corporations from using corporate funds to influence state and federal elections. The ruling overturned two previous cases where the Court ruled that Congress and the States may try to keep corporate money out of politics.

Jim Hightower offers another view of the deep consequences of the rulings of the John Roberts Supreme Court in his recent piece: Why are we letting corporate Supremists steal our democracy from us?

Free Speech For People, a national non-partisan organization, is one group diligently working since the day of the Citizens United ruling to educate American voters about its devastating impact and what can be done to overturn it.  The group is pressing for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to restore democracy to the people and to ensure that people, not corporations, govern in America.

It may seem like a daunting task, but one that must be pursued, according to John Bonifaz, co-founder of Free Speech For People: 

The Citizens United ruling presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy, unleashing a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in our history, Bonifaz said.  The ruling also marks the most extreme extension yet of a corporate rights doctrine that has placed corporations over people. 

We must begin the process of restoring the Constitution and fair elections to the people. While there are many calling for legislative fixes—including public funding of elections, which we support—we must face the reality that only a constitutional amendment will enable us to reclaim free-speech and other constitutional rights for people, not corporations.

For the first 200 years of our nation’s history, corporations were never defined by the courts as persons with free speech rights under the First Amendment.  Only in recent years have we witnessed this corporate takeover of our First Amendment, culminating in the Citizens United ruling.

Bonifaz and Free Speech For People take an historical look at amending the Constitution to keep them energized as they continue the battle.  “Americans have amended the Constitution repeatedly since the Civil War to expand rather than dilute democratic participation of people in elections,” Bonifaz said.  “Most of the 17 amendments that followed the 10 amendments of our Bill of Rights were adopted to defend and expand our democracy.”.”

In case you need a refresher: Constitutional amendments ended slavery; guaranteed liberty, due process, and equal protection for all; guaranteed the right to vote regardless of race; empowered the people to elect senators, who previously were appointed by state legislatures; guaranteed the right of women to vote; eliminated the poll tax, previously used to block poor people, often African Americans, from voting; and established a standard voting age.

How Does One Amend The Constitution?

Other than via a constitutional convention, a two thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress begins the process.  The proposed amendment must then be approved by three-fourths of the states; in other words, through the support of engaged, educated American citizens. 

It appears a strong basis of the support is already there:  According to a Hart Research Associates poll released by Free Speech For People, 82% of American voters believe Congress should take action to limit corporate spending in elections, and 79% of voters would support an amendment making clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people under the Constitution. The survey also revealed that support for an amendment transcends party lines, with large majorities of Democrats (87%), Independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) supporting its passage.

What Can One Person Do?

Too often we hear the electorate bemoaning, “What can I do?”  This is one instance where organized people can take a stand against organized money.  Free Speech For People offers a list at their web site of simple things that everyday citizens can do to start the hard work to amend the Constitution and stop the damages being done by the Citizens United ruling.  Perhaps, for many, just learning and knowing about Citizens United may be the first step.  Becoming educated, informed, and engaged is a must.

 Many of us have what we like to think of as our “favorite causes” to which we throw our support – be it environmental issues, single payer health care, voting rights, etc.  However, the chance of progressing on any issue today with corporate power maintaining such a gridlock over every level of elected official in this country remains slim.  To borrow from a phrase from Paul Newman in the movie The Verdict:  This (stopping unlimited corporate expenditures and the corporate takeover of our government) is the only issue.  There are no other issues.

On Monday, the 5-4 activist conservative majority on the Supreme Court found yet another way to put our politics in the hands of the moneyed interests who bankroll the conservative movement and undermine progressive government by striking a significant blow to state clean election laws.  Take action now by writing a letter to your local newspaper editor opposing the sale of our democracy, and by supporting organizations listed below who are fighting to take the for sale sign down.

The Supreme Court ruling at issue, Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, struck down a key portion of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act.   Under such Clean Election Laws, which exist in Arizona, Maine, and some local jurisdictions, candidates for public office that show a basic level of support are able to obtain public funds for their campaigns if they agree to forgo private financing.  Such laws are designed to help preserve our democracy by ensuring that candidates are able to run for office without being beholden to wealthy interests.  Public financing also increases the responsiveness of elected officials to their constituents by allowing candidates to spend more time with voters rather than having to constantly be begging for money from the wealthy and corporate interests.

Unfortunately, those wealthy interests are often able to overwhelm  public financing systems, as the lump sum amount of public financing that candidates receive can be swamped by the truckloads of cash that privately-financed campaigns can raise.  Arizona sought to address that problem by providing additional matching funds to publicly financed candidates.  Under the Arizona matching fund system, if a privately financed candidate spent more than a certain amount, each publicly-financed candidates would receive 94% of that additional amount in matching funds, up to a specific total amount of public financing.  There was no cap in Arizona on the amount that a privately financed candidate can spend.

The Supreme Court ruling on Monday found Arizona’s matching fund system to violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, on the grounds that such a matching fund system places a substantial burden on the speech of privately financed candidates and the independent expenditure groups that support them.  While the Court’s ruling was not exactly surprising given the Court’s previous ruling in Citizens United and the questions that the conservative activist majority asked at oral argument, it was misguided.  For one thing, the decision was based on the conservative majority’s faulty conclusion that money equals speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection.  In addition, as Justice Elena Kagan explained in a well-written dissent, it is simply wrong to contend that the matching funds burden anyone’s speech given that they do not prevent any privately financed speech, matching funds are available to all candidates regardless of viewpoint, and such matching funds allow for more speech.

While the Court purported to uphold the ability of states to provide for public financing, the Court’s holding strikes a serious blow at the effectiveness of such systems by preventing states from ensuring that such system cannot simply be overwhelmed by candidates who are able to raise nearly endless amounts of money thanks to the Citizens United decision.  In short, the five conservative activists on the Court have taken another step towards stealing our democracy away from we the people.

In order to take our democracy back, we the people have to do three things:

1. Elect Presidents and Senators who will nominate and support Supreme Court Justices that understand that money is not speech, and that our democracy is not something that you should be able to simply buy.

2. Push for a Constitutional amendment that makes it clear that money in the electoral context is not speech. Such an amendment would ensure that campaign finance laws and public financing would be subjected only to the types of rational basis review that most legislation is subject to, rather than the type of heightened review that occurs due to the faulty belief that money is speech.  Congresswoman Donna Edwards proposed such an amendment in 2010.

3. Get involved in the political system, so that we can outweigh the impact of money. On election day, each of our votes are worth just as much as that of one of the Koch brothers or any of the other conservative sugar daddies. And during a campaign, strong grassroots organizing can be just as effective as the mindless attack ads that most campaigns rely on. But for this alternative approach to work, we all have to get involved.

In order to help take our democracy back, we’d urge all of our readers to:

* Write a letter to your local newspaper editor supporting publicly financed campaigns and rejecting the notion that money equals speech.

* Join and follow on Facebook the following organizations that are fighting to return our democracy to the people, rather than to just the wealthy and corporate elite:

Brennan Center for Social Justice – a public interest think tank and legal advocacy organization based at New York University that helps litigate many high profile cases regarding elections and campaign finance.  Their Facebook page is here.

League of Women Voters – a non-profit advocacy group that has worked since 1920 to improve our system of government.  Follow them on Facebook here.

Free Speech for People – an advocacy organization dedicated to returning corporations to their proper role as economic, rather than political, entities.  Like them on Facebook here.

(by Mark McCutchan)

The ability of corporations and wealthy individuals to give unlimited amounts of money to political parties, PACs, 527s and individual political campaigns is steadily corrupting the representational democracy that our Founding Fathers envisioned, and is allowing the construction of an American plutocracy.

As an example, The Other 98%, “a grassroots network of concerned citizens fed up with the status quo in Washington”, recently produced the info-graphic featured at left, linking the billionaire Koch brothers’ donations to the election of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.

Wealthy conservative donors are giving to maximize their return on “investment”, but the situation is far worse than the graphic indicates.

Campaign financing tends to be a complicated affair, but effectively anyone can get around the rules to donate as much as they want.  “Soft money” contributions to the national parties was banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections, but most of this money can now enter races through 527 organizations and political action committees (PACs).

The Citizens United decision by the conservative-led Supreme Court in 2010 means that corporate campaign donations cannot be limited on First Amendment grounds, and that corporations effectively have achieved personhood.  It was the final puzzle piece needed by Koch brothers et al to ensure that the “one man, one vote” rule can be washed away by a tide of corporate money.

Campaign spending has set records every election cycle – a total of $6 billion was spent in the presidential election year 2008 on all federal elections, and “off-year” 2010 was in the $4 billion range (see chart 1).

Chart 1 – Total Campaign Expenses (data courtesy of Center for Responsive Politics)

Campaign spending by outside organizations (not the candidates or parties) soared from under $20 million in 1992 to almost $300 million in 2010, as corporations sought a larger role in selecting Republican office holders.

Six of the top 10 groups are conservative (like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads, advised by Karl Rove) and contributed a total of $117 million, while three were liberal and contributed just $37 million.

These conservative groups were very successful in 2010 as they ushered in a net 63 Republican representatives to the House.  The freshman Republicans were ideologically inclined to reward their patrons by slashing tax rates and regulatory laws that benefit these corporations, and financial payback started even before they took office with December’s extension of the Bush tax cuts, which favored the rich.

It was reported here in January that the House passed a bill eliminating the Presidential Campaign Finance Law, although no such bill is scheduled to be brought up in the Senate.  If the matching funds provision were to be removed, candidates would be at the beck and call of wealthy corporations making an ever-growing portion of the donations.

The GOP’s social payback has taken center stage this winter with pledges to slash the budget in the discretionary sector, proposing to defund Planned Parenthood, significantly cut WIC funding, and limit the power of the EPA to regulate pollution from coal-fired power plants.

What to do about this corporate takeover of our democracy?

1)      Implement Fair Elections – Fair Elections is a proposal that would allow candidates raising a low threshold amount from their constituents to be eligible for Fair Elections campaign funding.  In 2007, New York City adopted a mechanism of public finance in which the city matches small donations at a 6-1 ratio, boosting grass-roots fundraising.  As a result, the changes drastically curtailed the role of businesses, political committees and lobbyists in campaigns and, caused a major drop in donations from those doing business with the city.  This could work nationwide, with a reasonable cap for each type of office, and a ban on money outside the system.

2)      Reverse the Citizens United decision by Constitutional amendment – This method has two routes: a single federal convention, or ratification by 3/4s of the state conventions.  The grass-roots organization “Move to Amend” is promoting an amendment that would:

* “Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.”

* “Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.”

* “Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.”

3)      Reverse the Citizens United decision in court – This route would require a replacement of a conservative judge with a more progressive judge, and then a case on which to base the reversal; no telling how long these two conditions would take to occur.

4)      Use the Red-White-Blue (RWB) campaign finance system – I read about this in The American Prospect.  When Americans register to vote, they would be issued a credit card by a special public company– the Patriot card. This card will become the basis of campaign finance, as it would be credited with a $25 balance of RWB cash for every election.  Qualified candidates would solicit citizens for RWB donations through media paid for by an initial grant of RWB cash.  Some candidates would gain the media spotlight, momentum and millions in RWB cash, while others would flounder and fade.

“Under this system, only red-white-and-blue money may be used to finance political campaigns. The use of greenbacks would be treated as a form of corruption similar to the use of greenbacks to buy votes.”

We can save our democracy by learning more about campaign financing,and promoting a return of power to the people, not the corporations of these United States.   Help do so by contacting your Senators and Congressperson,  and by writing a letter to your local newspaper editor.  Here are links for submitting letters to the editor for national papers, and to newspapers in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,  Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

As always, if you have any feedback on this post, let us know at Winning Progressive’s Facebook page.

Why are these two so happy? They're scheming to steal the Presidency in 2012.

(By guest blogger Mark McCutchen)

 Update: At 2:12pm, H.R. 359 was passed 239-160, mostly along party lines, “terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions”.  The bill goes to the Senate next.  It may be stopped by the Democratic majority, but senators need to be reminded how important public financing is to their constituents (that’s you!). 

So, please call your Senators (contact info can be found here) and urge them to reject any effort to end or weaken the Federal Election Campaign Act

* * * * * * * * *

Last week, Rep. Eric Cantor, the majority whip, announced the GOP’s plan to vote on a bill as soon as today – without debates or hearings – to repeal the presidential financing system, one of the few remaining programs to stop corporations from buying the presidency.

The ostensible reason for the desire to end this program passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal is “cost-cutting” – a ridiculous claim, given that the entire $139.4 million distributed through the 2008 presidential election cycle was raised from Americans voluntarily checking off that little $3 box on their tax returns.   That’s right, no tax money was used.

The real reason for the GOP’s desire to repeal the Federal Election Campaign Act? To remove one more way that the American people can participate in our democracy, and make candidates more dependent on corporations for campaign financing.   Corporations and deep-pocketed donors tend to favor conservative causes like lower taxes for themselves and fewer government regulations, so this move by the Republicans is a no-brainer to put themselves in a better position for 2012.

Progressives value public financing of campaigns for the opposite reason – we want our elected officials to respond to the will of the people, not the will of corporations (despite the Citizens United ruling by the conservative-controlled Supreme Court, equating corporations to people). 

The Federal Election Campaign Act has not aged well since its passage and is in need of strengthening, not repeal.  Through “Clean Elections” legislation (passed in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine), candidates have the opportunity to qualify for full public funding, which ends their reliance on special interest campaign cash.  Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C) have introduced the Fair Elections Now Act which would provide full public financing for candidates for Congress. The bill in the House has more than 140 co-sponsors. 

A similar bill should be passed for presidential campaigns.

The FECA repeal bill could be voted on as soon as today – Wednesday –  so we need to move fast.

Call your member of the House of Representatives (contact info can be found here) and tell them you want corporate influence on our elected officials to end, and that they should support public financing of all elections, not the repeal of the FECA.