Monday, May 18, 2015

Defining Issue: Common Sense Campaign Finance System

Looks Like Someone Counting Drug Money 
(Campaign Money: Hard Drug Habit)


As polls showed after the 2012 election cycle, there was an unprecedented torrent of negative TV attack Ads that took their toll on almost every presidential and congressional candidate.  A hearty kudos to the Supreme Court (5-4 decision in Citizens United in 2010). Thanks for nothing.

In a candidate I want what I think a lot of Americans want. That is strong leadership. Not just a savvy person, well-spoken, sharp, good looking, with a silver tongue and “business or industry or military experience per se” and tons of money, but someone who listens, follows their heart but most of all is true to the public and offers bold decisions that do and are not harmful to the public or country – in other words: substance on tough issue that benefit us all – not pick and favors for the tons of money that put them in office. Sounds corny, I know, but that’s the kind of leadership I want – how about you?

A lot of Americans have spoken out about that dreadful Citizens United ruling and later in the McCutcheon case (also USSC 5-4 ruling) that followed and for good reason – some of that damage: 
  1. It swept aside decades of bipartisan regulation of campaign finance and sent us “back to the future” as it were – an ugly future to boot.
  2. Some 23 billionaires contributed a minimum of $250,000 each so far in the upcoming cycle.
  3. That number is really much greater because many of these contributions are made in secret.
  4. That small handful of powerfully rich Americans are just not content to own our economy, that 1 percent wants to own all of government (said Sen. Bernie Sanders in his remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights advocating repeal of Citizens United).
  5. That small handful already own a significant part of the wealth of America and have enormous control over the entire economy.
  6. The wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans — half the country.
  7. One family, for example: the Walton’s of Wal-Mart fame, is worth $89 billion, more than the bottom 40 percent of America (Sen. Sanders noted).
What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United was to say in essence that those billionaires and the corporations they control:  “Okay, you own and control the economy, you own most of Wall Street, you own the coal companies, you own the oil companies, and now, here we’re going to give you the opportunity to own the entire United States government” (also what Sen. Sanders said).

Advocates want an amendment to the constitution that says in part: “(1) for-profit corporations are not people, (2) they are not entitled to any rights under the Constitution, (3) they are subject to regulation by state legislatures consistent with free press protections, (4) they are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in political campaigns in any amount, and (5) that Congress and the states have the right to regulate and limit all political expenditures and contributions in all elections.”

People each election cycle scream for government that is both effective and efficient, less-taxing, and truly stands for these famous words: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (my emphasis added).

On the other hand, it seems to me with little organized public outcry and demand for reverse course that leaves an impression “I can’t give that kind of match. The big guys can, so what. That’s politics as usual and the money is speech, right?” I retort: Okay, if money is speech then it follows that only a small group of billionaires is allowed to own all the dictionaries and vocab lists in the country, and I ask: Why???

I strongly believe and have advocated for years that the massive amounts of big money from uncontrolled and unknown sources in most cases is and will be the further decline of political discourse in America.

I sincerely wonder how a handful of billionaires can override the will of the people while having the support a 5-4 high court without debate and discussion about reform that serves us all, because now it seems to me that the new rule is painfully obvious: “Don’t Kill the Golden Goose.” 

Let’s face, big money does not always win, but it drowns out less financed voices. Money is needed in politics for sure – to be effective to win – we all know that, but the massive amounts that we have seen in recent years is totally out of control.

Some people advocate and say: “Hey, that’s our system.” Yes, it is, but it needs to be changed on this critical point to keep in step with time and events and the general public who says: “The current campaign finance system with the tons of money from a few in a system that that is clearly corrupt has to go.  The standard must return to: “One-man/one-vote and not One-billionaire/all the votes.”

How we can’t see a serious need for reform is beyond my comprehension. I guess a supportive 5-4 court and a handful of billionaires forking over billions to those seeking their blessing (cold hard cash) who collectively stand for the status quo clearly comprehend, and they have a miserable record to prove it.  So, is this is anyway to run a great country or railroad? The answer is self-evident. 

Related:  

April 2013 from Alternet.org http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-we-ended-worst-congress-money-can-buy

No comments: