Does Olympia Snowe really want to be the target of waves of anonymous attack ads in support of some conservative primary challenger? Wouldn’t a retiring George Voinovich prefer to leave some shards of our democracy off-limits to being sold to the highest bidder? Could John McCain remember why McCain-Feingold was once of his proudest legacies and acknowledge how profoundly the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision damaged everything he was trying to do to safeguard American democracy?
Tag: Campaign finance reform
Sep 17 2010
Join 100+ Candidates in the Green New Deal Coalition
On July 14th, Green Change announced the campaign for a Green New Deal, a 10-point program to create economic prosperity together with ecological sustainability.
Since then over 100 candidates for elected office at all levels have joined the Green New Deal Coalition.
The Green New Deal Coalition will cut military spending, create millions of green jobs, and revive the economy by protecting the planet we depend on.
Green Change is inviting all candidates, individuals and organizations that support a prosperous, sustainable future for America to endorse the Green New Deal.
Read the call for a Green New Deal and sign on today.
To date, 11 candidates for governor, 11 candidates for US Senate, and 33 candidates for US House of Representatives have joined the Green New Deal Coalition.
All agree on the need to cut military spending, fund green public works, ban corporate personhood, pass single-payer health care, restore progressive taxation, ban usury, enact a revenue-neutral carbon tax, legalize marijuana, institute tuition-free public higher education, change trade agreements to improve labor, environmental and safety standards, and pass sweeping electoral, campaign finance and anti-corruption reforms.
These candidates represent a clean break with the failed policies of the past that have led America down the road to economic and ecological disaster.
The Green New Deal promises a brighter tomorrow for America – one that combines the New Deal’s promise of freedom from economic hardship with decisive action to protect our planet.
Jul 19 2010
Join the Green New Deal Coalition
In response to our nation's vast economic and ecological problems, Green Change has launched a campaign for a Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal is an ambitious program to create economic prosperity together with ecological sustainability.
We are building a coalition of candidates, individuals and organizations to support the Green New Deal – starting today.
Join the Green New Deal Coalition now.
Here are the ten policies you endorse by joining the Green New Deal Coalition:
1) Cut military spending at least 70%;
2) Create millions of green union jobs through massive public investment in renewable energy, mass transit and conservation;
3) Set ambitious, science-based greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and enact a revenue-neutral carbon tax to meet them;
4) Establish single-payer “Medicare for all” health care;
5) Provide tuition-free public higher education;
6) Change trade agreements to improve labor, environmental, consumer, health and safety standards;
7) End counterproductive prohibition policies and legalize marijuana;
8) Enact tough limits on credit interest and lending rates, progressive tax reform and strict financial regulation;
9) Amend the U.S. Constitution to abolish corporate personhood; and
10) Pass sweeping electoral, campaign finance and anti-corruption reforms.
Will you help us turn these ideas into reality?
Sign up for the Green New Deal Coalition now.
The first step is to agree on these ten priorities. The next step is to push for specific policies to make them happen.
We need your help. Share your ideas about a Green New Deal on the Green Change network.
Jun 01 2010
Stop BP and big money from buying Congress – take action for public campaign financing
Not much has changed since Will Rogers said “We have the best Congress money can buy.”
Wealthy special interests still trade big campaign contributions for special treatment from Congress on a regular basis.
One example is BP, the corporation responsible for the Gulf oil spill, which has given over 6 million dollars to candidates in the last 20 years.
It’s time to change the system so that Congress will work for the people – not the big-money special interests.
Tell your members of Congress to support the Fair Elections Now Act today.
The Fair Elections Now Act would set up a public financing system for qualified congressional candidates.
Public campaign financing would break big money’s stranglehold on our government, by helping candidates to run competitive campaigns without taking money from corporate lobbyists and PACs.
Many of America’s problems can be traced to our poorly regulated campaign finance system – where candidates for Congress take money from wealthy special interests in return for political favors.
The BP oil spill disaster is just one example of the harm caused by big money in politics. The oil industry’s political contributions helped BP avoid having to install crucial safety features on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that could have stopped the spill.
Outrageously, BP may avoid paying for the damage it caused thanks to a liability cap passed by Congress after the devastating 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
It’s not hard to understand why Congress lets the oil companies have their way – the oil and gas industry gave a whopping $22.9 million to congressional candidates in 2008, and has already given $9.7 million in the 2010 election cycle.
Elected officials should be accountable only to the voters and the public good – not big corporations scheming behind the scenes to purchase political outcomes.
Tell your members of Congress to support the Fair Elections Now Act today.
Apr 12 2010
The People’s Lobby: forum on corporate money in US politics & election reform
WASHINGTON, DC — In honor of Thomas Jefferson’s 267th birthday, the Green Party of Florida and the People’s Lobby Coalition for Public Funding Only of All Elections will hold a forum on the influence of corporate lobbies on US elections. The forum will take place at the National Press Club (http://npc.press.org) in Washington, DC, at 7 pm on Tuesday, April 13, 2010.
The speakers will discuss ‘Money Morality’ and the effect of corporate money on health care, energy, the economy, treatment of the poor, and other major issues, with an analysis of military expenditures in light of campaign contributions from defense contractors.
“We’ll talk about the correlation between the influence of the 13,000 special interest lobbyists and our elected officials’ voting trends in relation to these issues. And we’ll propose necessary changes to our election system to restore democracy,” said Jennifer Sullivan, organizer of the event.
The event is open to the public, with doors opening at 7 pm. Admission is free for all members of the media with proper ID. General admission is a suggested donation of $10.00 or $15.00 per couple; no one will be turned away.
Refreshments will be served, with a variety of selected hors d’oeuvres, house specialty dips, gourmet chips, beverages, and a cash bar.
Feb 18 2010
Continued Legislative Pushback to SCOTUS Ruling
An article in yesterday’s Washington Post reveals that the roots of public dissatisfaction with the recent SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission run deep. As the paper’s own polling reveals,
Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court’s Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent “strongly” opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.
The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).
The results suggest a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court’s decision.
The Roberts Court unfortunately reaffirmed that corporations have the same basic freedoms and rights to free speech as do individuals. The sordid history of corporate personhood began in the late Nineteenth Century and has been a contentious, divisive issue ever since. With the rise of corporations and multinational conglomerates, corporate personhood has never been far from the public consciousness. A series of rulings over time have revealed the depths of the debate.
Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas both rendered opinions attacking the doctrine of corporate personhood. Justice Black, in a dissenting opinion, concluded,
If the people of this nation wish to deprive the states of their sovereign rights to determine what is a fair and just tax upon corporations doing a purely local business within their own state boundaries, there is a way provided by the Constitution to accomplish this purpose. That way does not lie along the course of judicial amendment to that fundamental charter. An amendment having that purpose could be submitted by Congress as provided by the Constitution. I do not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment had that purpose, nor that the people believed it had that purpose, nor that it should be construed as having that purpose.
(Hugo Black, dissenting, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson (303 U.S. 77, 1938)
It remains to be seen whether this bill will be signed into law, or, assuming it is, what its greater impact will be. The recent ruling has just now taken effect and no one at this point is certain what liberties corporations might take or intend on taking in this year’s election cycle. Furthermore, the Obama Administration and the Roberts Court have not yet taken highly antagonistic positions with each other the same way FDR did with the Hughes Court back in the 1930’s. However, it must be noted that FDR’s New Deal lead to the enactment of a variety of reforms and Obama has only managed a paltry sum in comparison. A majority desperate to minimize its losses would do well to start here.
Feb 15 2010
A Winning Election Strategy for 2010
After the 2008 election cycle advanced a long litany of proposed reforms and massive structural changes which came attached to Presidential candidate Barack Obama, 2010’s agenda is much more modest. A disillusioned, frustrated electorate looks to lash out against those in power by casting their votes accordingly, hence the reason why so many long-time legislators within the party have retired in the past several months. As we know, scaled down versions of existing measures are the order of the day, and skittish Democrats are wary of making additional promises that they know they can’t likely keep, aiming to avoid increased voter ire at all cost. Still, it would be foolish to cast aside all talk of additional reform, particularly since some slightly more modest proposals would likely go over well, even in this dubious climate.
Even with the severe limitations of the 2010 cycle, there are a few issues Democrats could hammer home that would resonate well with voters. Polls reveal that the recent Federal Election Commission v. Citizens United Supreme Court decision regarding campaign finance reform is a highly unpopular one, and some Democrats on the state and local level have proposed measures to push back and guard themselves from the potential sweep of corporate interference.
Maryland lawmakers are mobilizing to prepare a series of campaign finance reforms in response to a recent Supreme Court decision that will open federal elections to more corporate and labor spending.
About a dozen Democratic senators and delegates this week outlined a package of bills meant to restrict the ability of those businesses to spend in state elections.
The initiatives come after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overturned a prohibition on corporations and unions using general treasury funds for political ads.
Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery, said the legislators are working to “try and contain the damage.”
It should be noted that none of these measures do a tremendous amount to reverse the decision itself and its now-established precedent, but they do provide additional safeguards in case corporations decide to take new liberties. The nightmare scenario envisioned by many is an influx of corporate-based cash into races and regions in ways that had never before existed. Thus, this proposed legislation is designed primarily to prevent business from overreaching into political races. Even so, sensible strategies like these would go over well with constituents in every state, and would give increasingly vulnerable Democrats a powerfully populist talking point. Subsequent pro-big business decisions from whatever source are likely to be viewed negatively by the American people, and if the national Democratic Party wishes to rebrand itself to keep its control of Congress, it might do well to consider strategies like these.
Running against the SCOTUS as a whole might also prove to be a winning strategy, since the latest unpopular heavily split decision reveals the undemocratic nature of a small, deliberative body who is appointed for life and cannot be collectively, individually, or otherwise voted in or voted out by the general public. We can forever debate the merits of why the Federal judicial system was set up in such a fashion, but we simply can’t deny the reality of it. Voters now are concerned much more about results, not reasons. Moreover, the direct impact upon the 5-4 decision itself showed plainly in the person of the two Justices that Former President George W. Bush nominated. Democrats could once again point back to the destructive Bush Presidency as a still-evident and still-existing part of the problem. The Roberts court has not yet set itself up as directly antagonistic to President Obama and his agenda, but it very well might as time goes on, which would give the incumbent Chief Executive a weapon when the time arrives for him to run for re-election in 2012. Setting the scene early as well as the framing would make that message far more pertinent and pervasive.
Though the party in power is always under the gun when a bad economy, high unemployment, and Congressional gridlock spawn massive ill-will in the voting public, a slight modification in focus could limit losses and stem the bleeding. As it is right now, Democrats are rushing about in a million different directions with no coherent, nor cohesive sense of message discipline. As many have done before, I have criticized those in positions of authority who have either abused the peoples’ trust or have frittered away a golden opportunity by their own inability to form consensus or make resounding, firm decisions. The sea change in Washington politics ushered in by an astounding 2008 cycle and an equally astounding rapid decay of many of those gains in the course of one short year has redefined previously existing parameters and expected results. Acting sooner rather than later works against the math and logic of a previous age, I recognize, but what we have all discovered recently is that significant developments of the Twenty-first Century proceed at an incredibly rapid clip, and those who jump out in front of an issue first usually fare the best. The clock is running down, but there is still plenty of time left.
Feb 08 2010
The Week in Editorial Cartoons – Mad Hatters and Tea Parties
Crossposted at Daily Kos
THE WEEK IN EDITORIAL CARTOONS
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week’s important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist’s message.
:: ::
Steve Sack, Comics.com
Feb 07 2010
Wall Street CEOs Organizing To Buy U.S. Elections
The January 21 Supreme Court decision [.pdf] in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case lifted bans on corporate spending for campaign finance, drawing heavy criticism from across the country for the ruling’s potential to undermine the American democratic process.
Now with that ruling in their back pockets, “[a]t least half a dozen leaders of the Republican Party have joined forces to create a new political group with the goal of organizing grass-roots support and raising funds ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to people familiar with the effort”, says the Wall Street journal in an article January 30.
The Supreme Court ruling could potentially allow the group, called the American Action Network, to take unlimited contributions from corporations for use in political campaigns.
Jan 26 2010
The Week in Editorial Cartoons – In Corporations We Trust
Crossposted at Daily Kos
THE WEEK IN EDITORIAL CARTOONS
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week’s important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist’s message.
:: ::
John Darkow, Columbia Daily Tribune, Buy this cartoon
Jan 23 2010
Quit hitting us up for money!
Oct 19 2009
Ike Skelton Pushes For More War in Afghanistan
Cross-posted at Dkos, MyDD, OpenLeft, and FDL.
——–
In today’s WaPo, Ike Skelton, Chair of the House Armed Forces Committee, teamed up with everyone’s favorite former Democrat, Joe Lieberman, on an op-ed for more war in Afghanistan called Don’t Settle for Stalemate in Afghanistan.
The president was right to call the war in Afghanistan “a war of necessity.” Now it is time to treat it as such and commit the decisive force that will allow Gen. McChrystal to break the Taliban’s momentum as quickly as possible.
And
Here at home, we must stabilize public support by convincing an increasingly skeptical American people that the Afghan war is in fact winnable.
. .
It comes as no surprise that Ike and Joe are in favor of treating our Armed Forces to more $#!t sandwiches and crap burgers in Afghanistan. Ike and Joe have been talking it up for quite a while.
- 1
- 2