Citizens United, Super PACs and the 2012 Presidential Race
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-17/citizens-united-super-pacs-and-2012-presidential-race
Citizens United and super PACs: What unrestricted corporate, union and special-interest campaign spending means for the 2012 presidential race.
Guests
Trevor Potter
former chair of the Federal Election Commission; president and general counsel of The Campaign Legal Center; and head of the political activity practice at Caplin & Drysdale.
Dave Levinthal
political influence reporter, Politico.
Jan Baran
head of the election law group at Wiley Rein LLP; former general counsel to the Republican National Committee; author, "The Election Law Primer for Corporations."
Bob Edgar
president, Common Cause; former congressman, Democrat-Pennsylvania (1975-1987); former general secretary, National Council of Churches.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme...
Would your guest please discuss what Sheldon Adelsons intentions are? This is a man who has torn down unions is clearly not for workers rights and is on the surface going after Romney for business practices. Clearly not the reason he is giving Gingrich money to stay in the game.
Many bloggers have been writing about Adelsons support for illegal settlements in the West Bank for years. That his intention is to somehow take down Rep Paul sane foreign policy stances and Pauls third place win in Iowa, his second place win in New Hampshire and Rep Pauls third place running in South Carolina. Rep Paul is going to have quite a few votes at the Republican convention. If he were to go rogue he would take quite a few votes from Romney against Obama if he runs as an independent.
Many of us are supporting Rep Pauls sane anti unnecessary war against Iran stance. Most of us would never support his domestic stances but he seems to be the counterbalance to the go get Iran crowd. What are Adelsons intentions?
How much money does anti unnecessary wars candidate Rep Paul get from Super Pacs? Sure do not hear much about that? Can not find much when I google.
All of the money being spent has been achieved by tax-write-offs. Taxes not paid in for fair use of the physical facilities of roads, ports, court building, ambulances, used of medical research and 'state colleges' that are now basically private extentions etc., that the general population pay for. When they speak of trickle-down, it is their experience with the tax write-off money, they trickle it, much like a bishop in Rome, with those silver sprinklers, over their own friends and family, not for the good of their country, but rather only for the good of those in their compound. They are only concerned for the streams that trickle in the fountains in their secluded gardens, and don't give a d...n for lack of access of any one else's children's nervous systems lack of experience of nature. They beat the people down with their snide looks and asides. But you can't say they physically beat anyone....but somehow all we maccacas feel looked down upon, and it feels like a slap and a kick. We knows the children experience this everyday.
Do your guest think the US Supreme Court should just go ahead and change the US constitution eliminate "We the People" and change it to start with "We the Super Pacs"
They could also edit Abraham Lincolns Gettysburg address c while they are at it. " that government of the pacs by the pacs, for the pacs, shall not perish from the earth. "
The more money corporations are able to pour into our elections the more influence they have in our government.
The more influence corporations (and the ultra wealthy) have in politics the less the voters believe they can influence their government meaningfully. This apathy will lead to an uninformed electorate which will be MORE easily manipulated by the corporate money pouring in. It becomes a vicious and destructive cycle.
What is stopping an extremely well funded PAC from dominating the airwaves by assuring television stations they will always outbid the competition by 1% when buying advertising time?
kathleen,
I emailed the show this question - don't know if it will get on the air so I will ask you, since you seem to think you have a good understanding of the facts of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission:
Please ask your guests the following - it's a quesiton I've been trying to get answered for a year and a half:
In Citizens United, let's say the court decided the other way and prohibited its distribution. Now, it's 2012, Mitt Romney is running for President and Michael Moore wants to put out a movie dissing the Mormon faith. Can he do it? That is the problem with an adverse decision in this case. It essentially sets a "sloppy" precedent whereby, CU is denied its speech, but who decides whether Moore can release his movie? or Oliver Stone his next movie? Who decides if, say a parody is too close to reality and shouldn't be shown? It becomes a sloppy mess.
That is why the court, AND THE FOUNDERS, said, "allow everything". If there are questions of slander, libel, or other factual issues, take the producers to court, otherwise, shut up and produce your own movie.
This is nothing but legalized graft. It is now One $ One Vote, not One Man One Vote. Since when is a corporation afforded the rights of a Human Being - A corporation can not be held accountable or thrown in jail so how is it they are afforded the same right?
We need to ban all private contributions for campaigns and allow ONLY public funding. Anyone who gets certain % of signatures is eligible to recieve - this would finally break the strangle-hold of the 2 parties.
Don't donations from international corporations by definition contain foreign assets? And therefore isn't it conceivable that our elections could now be bought or influenced by foreign interests? How is that legal or in our interests?
Yesterday I received in the mail a donation card from Altria (Kraft Foods) for a donation to a their Republican super pac. Large corporations are the super pacs. I could not believe it. There seems to no difference in lobbyists and super pacs. When will the U.S. Congress vote to regulate lobbyists and these super pacs. In reality, our individual votes do not really matter when candidates are elected with private money!
Our election periods are too long and should be 3 months in duration not 4 years, like the in the U.K.
It seems that Super PACs made up of friends, employees, family members who have intimate knowledge of the candidates and their plans are not much different from those who buy or sell stocks based on insider information. They are not WHOLLY independent!
This was a horrendous decision by this right wing radical supreme court. In Canada all elections are funded by the taxpayers with a limit on how much can be spent by the parties. We have no problems with any of our elections. And more importantly there is no corruption.
If I choose to give a lot of money to a politician, it would be because I want a favor from that politician. I think the question here is: how long can an increasingly corrupt society survive?
If you like bloviating, you'll love the guest on the phone. He says Corporations aren't people ... blah, blah, blah ... money is not speech ... blah, blah, blah, the same old talking points. What NO ONE CAN ANSWER is, HOW COULD CU v FEC have been decided DIFFERENTLY!
It couldn't have been. All we hear is the talking points, but no meaningful suggestion that does not SUPPRESS speech.
Democracy has been run over by Capitalism. The power of capital runs our political process and government. This is why Congress has a 11% approval rating. We have been completely sold out and I have NO faith in our government. I would suggest that we simply not vote at all.
Citizens United is only a portion of a greater issue concerning campaign reform, notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court decision to recognize corporations as people in first place is at the heart of campaign corruption. (Work for corporation and you get mail telling you who to support.) .... If I recall, the Supreme Court interfered "unconstitutionally" in the 2000 election by "electing" George W. Bush president, and then there was the 2004 election and the Ohio vote. But facts didn't change the out come of either election. See Mark C. Miller's FOOLED AGAIN. Who really controls national elections? Sadly, the "involved" public sat back quietly. The voting process is simply a show and the Super PAC constitutes a business of sorts in and of itself.
Fine tuning the Constitution? That is what the amendment process is! An absolute shame on government that because it's too hard to get consensus on "wants" that they would circumvent the Law that restricts their actions.
chris jeffery:
Exactly, capitalism corrupts everything that it touches. Thus we have the best Government and Supreme Court that money can buy.
We are not a nation of people, we are a nation of corporations. This is not what the founders had in mind at all.
Money is not speech. If that were true then what I had to say would have as much import as what David Koch has to say and we all know that is not true.
What about the idea that if I belong to a corporation I unfairly get to speak twice. I can donate as an individual and get to again (speak) as a member of a corp.
Maybe if your corporation speaks for you you shouldn't get to speak as a private person. It feels like some of us are getting two bites at the apple?
Dissing the Mormon faith doesn't seem to be hurting Romney. There is a musical on Broadway (by the South Park creators), a documentary (Tabloid) by Errol Morris and several cable shows that could be described as dissing the Latter Day Saints. These things only seem to add to Romney's cache' and mystery. If he will rule a planet full of wives when he dies why would he mess around with something trivial like the US Presidency? And was it God's will he become a venture capitalist billionaire? It's plenty more intriguing than where Newt gets his PAC money or how he will next couch his racism. Mormonism is almost Scientology when you edit out Methodism so Ron Paul's self-made barbarians can't touch it. (Santorum is too uptight and pitiful to compare and Perry shows signs of Alzheimer's like Reagan did.) Has anyone considered that LDS Incorporated may be the biggest PAC of all? Are they hedging their bets by also bankrolling Obama? Well I wonder, la de da, la-a de da, lordy, lordy, lordy.
Teece, your comment would probably have more import but Koch has more money!
Thank you for bringing up the topic of Citizens United and super PACs. My questions pertains to the prior.
Since Citizens United made corporations into people, does that mean that they need to follow the same rules that people follow about leaving the country? I know people need passports, as well as other information, to be able to leave. Does this mean the government can put up barriers for American based companies outsourcing jobs?
Teece: Capitalism corrupts all it touches, but also excludes or destroys all it can't corrupt. Ask Chris Hedges. (War Is a Force That Gives Us Meanies)
Pancake:
True....so True.
Money is not speech, blah blah blah, corporations are not people, blah, blah, blah.
In Citizens United, let's say the court decided the other way and prohibited its distribution. Now, it's 2012, Mitt Romney is running for President and Michael Moore wants to put out a movie dissing the Mormon faith. Can he do it? That is the problem with an adverse decision in this case. It essentially sets a "sloppy" precedent whereby, CU is denied its speech, but who decides whether Moore can release his movie? or Oliver Stone his next movie? Who decides if, say a parody is too close to reality and shouldn't be shown?
Joseph Swine: Under the 13th amendment no person (corporation?) can be owned (slavery), so where does that leave us? One discovers pretty quickly who owns the Constitution (Lord Proprietors) and has the authority/power to disregard all contradictions for their own advantage. And that is why it does little good to worship founding documents. The Constitution is used as a bugaboo like printed holy books (Bibles) to deter your critique.
Pancake:
As you note....Constitutionalism is just Fundamentalism in a slightly different form. Strict adherence to concrete rules is a dangerous notion in the fact of evolving conditions.
Pancake:
As you note....Constitutionalism is just Fundamentalism in a slightly different form. Strict adherence to concrete rules is a dangerous notion in the face of evolving conditions.
jonandre: What if only accomplished jurists and not ideologues with a corporate agenda been appointed to the Supreme Court? I guess we'll never know. Citizens United v FEC lacked the scope to support the decision rendered, and that is why it seems like treason against democracy. The goons overgoosestepped. (Both Republicans and Democrats conspired for such an outcome.The trusting public was stabbed in the back.)