Democracy is for People: Fighting Corporate Influence in Our Elections
Over the past few years, frustration with the increasing power that corporations have on our political system has been growing across the country.
Whether it has been the debate over healthcare reform, financial reform and consumer protection, or clean air and water regulations, we’ve seen time and time again the very real impact corporate lobbyists and political spending have on our policymaking process, with corporate profits trumping the needs of average people over and over.
This problem was made worse two years ago, in January 2010, with the misguided and destructive Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs FEC. The decision struck down bipartisan legislation that had limited corporations from spending their general treasury funds on political advertisements. Now, for-profit corporations may spend unlimited amounts of their general treasury funds to influence elections at all levels of government and set the political agenda through anonymous, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns.
The danger is real: if Exxon Mobil had spent just 2 percent of its 2008 profits in the last presidential election, it would have outspent McCain and Obama combined.
In fact, we are already seeing the effects of the Citizens United decision on our elections. Just this month, Las Vegas casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson and his wife spent $10 million to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid. Super PACs—the political fundraising groups created in the wake of Citizens United—have already spent $28.5 million (and counting) on advertising in the Republican presidential campaign. At this point, Super PACs are overtaking the candidates themselves!
The danger of undue corporate influence isn’t only for national elections. Indeed, the biggest danger to our democracy might be at the local level. A large developer seeking a change in a local zoning law, for example, could spend tens of thousands of dollars to influence a board of selectman race – small peanuts to the company, perhaps, but a substantial amount of money for that small local race. A selectman who opposed the company could never compete financially with the flood of advertising.
Corporate lobbyists and other powerful special interests are now able to threaten public officials at all levels with the possibility of unending negative campaign ads if their agendas are not supported — and the voices of ordinary citizens are at risk of being drowned out of the electoral process as a result.
I am troubled by the growing role of money – and especially corporate money -- in politics for one simple reason: I believe that democracy should not be for sale. As the only Clean Elections candidate ever elected to public office in Massachusetts history, I understand the critical need to reduce the influence of special interest money on elections. In my time as a legislator, I have continued to fight the influence of money in our political system because it breeds corruption and takes power away from ordinary citizens.
Working with a coalition of good government and voting rights organizations, I’ve filed several pieces of legislation to address the problems created by the Citizens United decision.
In the short-term, I have proposed S304: An Act Relative to Disclosure of Political Spending, which would require corporations spending money in Massachusetts to disclose their political spending and identify themselves in advertisements that they fund. Additionally, I have filed S305: An Act Relative to Accountability for Corporate Political Spending, which would require corporations chartered in Massachusetts to receive prior approval from the board of directors before committing funds for political purposes, and to notify shareholders of those expenditures.
These bills would address some of the negative impacts of the Supreme Court decision here in Massachusetts. But ultimately, the only effective long-term solution is to pass a constitutional amendment, such as the one filed by Congressman Jim McGovern of Worcester, overturning the decision reached in Citizens United and restoring our ability to regulate corporate political spending. To this end, I’ve filed S722: A Resolution Restoring Free Speech, which, if passed, would call upon Congress to send such a constitutional amendment to the states.
Amending the constitution would make it clear that corporations are not people and are not guaranteed the same constitutional rights as we are. As citizens, we think about what is best for our country, our communities and our children. Corporations, on the other hand, are abstract legal entities created for people to conduct business with each other. They exist for the sole purpose of making profit—not creating a better society for all Americans. Their loyalties are to their shareholders and not the broader public.
By enacting these reforms we can ensure that elections are truly decided by “we the people,” and not corporate special interests.
State Senator Jamie Eldridge can be reached at 617-722-1120. You can also visit his website, www.SenatorEldridge.com, or email him at James.Eldridge@MASenate.gov.
Michael Lewis
11:10 am on Saturday, February 4, 2012
If special interest corporations are as powerful as we have been led to believe; is there any reason to doubt they designed and paid for the Federal Campaign Reform Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act:
Free Speech Needs Jerry Maguire
By Ryan Sager Published 03/18/2005 - http://amendment10.tripod.com/jerrymaguire.htm
Excerpt:
That's because campaign-finance reform is not a "movement" as its proponents have claimed, it is a lobby -- funded and orchestrated by eight very liberal foundations which fooled Congress and the American people into believing that the front groups they set up were grassroots organizations.
Senator McConnell Smelled the Pew in 2001
Senator McConnell exposed the charitable trusts behind BCRA in the Congressional Record of Arpil 2, 2001.
The following is excerpted from three pages of the Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 107th Congress, First Session, Washington, Monday, April 2, 2001, Vol. 147, No. 46:
http://amendment10.tripod.com/mcpew.htm
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM
ACT OF 2001— Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. MCCONNELL.
Who wins?
As I said the other day, who wins are people such as Jerome Kohlberg. This is the billionaire who has decided this is going to be his legacy. This is the full page ad he ran in the Washington Post the other day on behalf of this legislation.
Michael Lewis
11:15 am on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Prior to President Nixon’s second term, some of our nation’s largest newspapers found themselves in federal court losing antitrust suits which accused them of purchasing financially troubled regional newspapers and then pretending to compete with them while rigging prices.
The Newspaper Preservation Act was working its way through congress and was designed to grant antitrust relief to the affected newspapers. Richard Nixon and his, Attorney General, were on record as strongly opposed to the passage of the Newspaper Preservation Act.
A newspaper executive wrote a letter to President Nixon as his re-election approached. The letter reminded President Nixon that the nation’s largest Newspaper chains published in those states that had the largest number of electoral votes. The carefully worded letter reminded President Nixon that it could be difficult to be re-elected without their editorial support.
Nixon reversed his position and convinced Congress to pass the Newspaper Preservation Act.
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.
The newly minted campaign laws should have chastised the 4th estate as well as Nixon? Instead the Federal Election Campaign Reform Act exempted corporate media from campaign laws and created the “State Approved Press”.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_Preservation_Act_of_1970
Michael Lewis
11:16 am on Saturday, February 4, 2012
It is normal for all large businesses to make serious efforts to influence the news, to avoid embarrassing publicity, and to maximize sympathetic public opinion and government policies. Now they own most of the news media that they wish to influence.
Interlocked boards of directors have enormously complicated potential conflicts of interest in the major national and multinational corporations that now control most of the country’s media.
A 1979 study by Peter Dreier and Steven Weinberg found interlocked directorates in major newspaper chains. Gannett shared directors with Merrill Lynch stock brokers), Standard Oil of Ohio, 20th-Century Fox, Kerr-McGee (oil, gas, nuclear power, aerospace), McDonnell Douglas Aircraft, McGraw-Hill, Eastern Airlines, Phillips Petroleum, Kellogg Company, and New York Telephone Company.
Louis Brandeis, before joining the Supreme Court, called this linkage “the endless chain.” He wrote: “This practice of interlocking directorates is the root of many evils. It offends laws human and divine. . . . It tends to disloyalty and violation of the fundamental law that no man can serve two masters…. It is undemocratic, for it rejects the platform: ‘A fair field and no favors.”
Above are excerpts from The Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian.
Michael Lewis
11:19 am on Saturday, February 4, 2012
From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms applied only to flesh and blood citizens.
From 1886 to 1973 citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.
From 1974 to present only commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedoms. Congress amended FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.
2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads?
The media’s cries crocodile tears. If they carried political ads, as a public service, it would greatly reduce the need for money in politics! But media makes billions off campaign ads.
The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws.
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
To restore equal protection under law the press exemption must be extended to citizens and groups!
The NRA bought a radio station. Should citizens have to buy a radio station to speak or a newspaper to print their views?
Allen Nitschelm
2:19 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Jamie Eldridge's proposal would limit "corporations" from spending money on Super PACs. This would clearly take away their right to Free Speech.
Eldridge argues that since corporations aren't people, they don't have an inherent right to Free Speech. Since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have Free Speech rights, this is the only logical argument Eldridge could make to deny them the right to speak.
Once you decide that non-people aren't afforded Free Speech rights, what's to stop future leaders from silencing other "non-people" from speaking?
For example, what if the leadership didn't like what the Ku Klux Klan had to say? They are an offensive organization and clearly have an unconscionable message. Let's take away their right to speak because they aren't people.
Once we go down this slippery slope, it is going to get steep pretty quickly. Should we ban political action committees themselves? How about special interest groups with a political agenda? How about civil-rights groups? How about non-profits? We can ban everyone who isn't a "person" and pretty soon we have all lost our collective rights to Free Speech.
I'm sure Eldridge would be totally against unions from being prohibited from spending money to help candidates, as Eldridge personally benefits from this.
Finally, many wealth individuals donate to political parties. If this doesn't apply equally to them, it would be inherently unfair.
Eldridge has missed the boat on this one.
LOBTTG
3:22 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Wow great points Allen. If Mr Eldridge truly feels the way that he does, he should NEVER take another cent from a union. Let's see what happens. If I was a gambler I know where my money would be.
Paul Henrion (Acton Community Leading Initiatives
4:24 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
JAMIE'S RIGHT ABOUT THE RISK - BUT WRONG ABOUT THE SOLUTION. ACTON FORUM IS RIGHT ABOUT JAMIE'S SOLUTION - BUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS. In a democracy the most fundamental freedom is the right to vote. One person - one vote is not enshrined in the constitution and like other rights, eg. privacy, relies on Supreme Court decisions that can be overturned by new Justices appointed by new Presidents' and confirmed by new Senates'. So Jamie is quite right that we must be ever so careful to ensure that one person - one vote isn't overturned in reality by too many $$ chasing bad interests. No disagreement on that from me, but how to do so is tricky.
What Jamie seems to be concerned about is not just the $$ spent themselves, but how they are spent. Clearly it would be a felony for a corporation or representatives to pay $$ to an election official to rig an election or result in a key state for President. Similarly bribing officials with generous reelection campaign donations conditioned on current votes or influence by the official is also illegal.
[For the rest of the comment - see Acton Community Leading Initiatives (by Paul Henrion) on facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Acton-Community-Leading-Initiatives/224227354327760. ]
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
6:09 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
To My Flock,
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech", according the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court called it correctly in the Citizens United vs FEC decision. We don't hear Jamie complaining about George Soros, the massive spending that helped propel Obama into office, or the unions.
Corporations have legitimate interests too. In spite of the rapid growth in government, the real engine of the economy is the dreaded private sector. These companies owe their employees, customers and shareholders the ability to make their positions known. This is not popular among Democrats who have long demonized the private sector.
People have the ability to disregard what they hear emanating from any Super PAC. More information is better.... and truly free speech is the best.
Your spiritual advisor,
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
8:35 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Jamie says,
"Corporations...They exist for the sole purpose of making profit—not creating a better society for all Americans."
What a jaded and bizzare view of the world. How about the nursery school, health clinic, bicycle shop, dry cleaner or bookseller?... all incorporated. Are they not helping create a better society? Makes you wonder if Jamie has ever held a real job or has only subsisted in the lap of government.
Your humble servant,
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Charlie Kadlec
5:55 pm on Sunday, February 5, 2012
Jamie Eldridge tells us "They (corporations) exist for the sole purpose of making profit—not creating a better society for all Americans." Jamie does not understand, or perhaps does not like, our economic system. "Profit" to him is a pejorative, tantamount to "greed" and "worker exploitation" and therefore corporations must be regulated, controlled, viewed with suspicion. Jamie does not understand that corporations' profit is the source of a most of the state's revenue. Corporations that are viable -- make a profit -- pay taxes on that profit, have employees that pay taxes in their income, buy goods and services from other businesses that pay taxes and have employees who pay taxes, use their profit to expand and hire more employees. Profitable companies increase the value of their stock which means that the stockholders pay taxes on their capital gains when they sell. Corporations that are not profitable do not have taxable income, lay off employees who then also do not have taxable income and collect unemployment benefits, may need other services which cost the state money. I guess the latter is Jamie's idea of "a better society". No thanks, Jamie, we do not need to worry about profit-making corporations, we need to worry about professional politicians who want to use their power to pass legislation which makes it easier for them to remain in office.
Charlie Kadlec
Acton
Allen Nitschelm
6:34 pm on Sunday, February 5, 2012
This is too funny! Re-read this paragraph by Eldridge and ask me if you can't substitute the word "union" for "corporate," "developer," and "company":
"The danger of undue corporate influence isn’t only for national elections. Indeed, the biggest danger to our democracy might be at the local level. A large developer seeking a change in a local zoning law, for example, could spend tens of thousands of dollars to influence a board of selectman race – small peanuts to the company, perhaps, but a substantial amount of money for that small local race. A selectman who opposed the company could never compete financially with the flood of advertising."
Isn't undue union influence exactly the strategy of the local Democrats to win these local elections, including support for Jamie and his allies?
LOL
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
6:40 pm on Sunday, February 5, 2012
Good points, Charlie,
Can you imagine if Jamie proposed restrictions on campaign spending by labor unions? No Democrat would ever dare, as it would cut off their life blood. Sadly in this bluest of blue states some people believe this stuff and agree on an assault on free enterprise.
Jamie takes a swipe at Exxon Mobil, ignoring the fact that the company provides much of the energy we depend on, employs 100,000 people, pays vast taxes and whose stock appears in many retirement plans. Here in the Commonwealth politicians demonize these kinds of businesses but promote losing hare-brained green energy schemes.
Sadly Jamie will find many intellectual lightweights and Democrat dependents who agree with him.
Your humble advisor,
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Charlie Kadlec
1:46 am on Monday, February 6, 2012
According to the summary of "A Resolution Restoring Free Speech" sponsored by Jamie Eldridge and Cory Atkins this resolution calls for "a constitutional amendment that would limit the right of free speech to citizens, not corporations". Jamie's explanation on his website claims that "the voices of ordinary citizens could be drowned out of the electoral process" by political ads by "lobbyists and other powerful special interests" paid for by corporations.
The only ads and expensive 4-color oversize cards that I receive during political campaigns are from unions supporting Democratic candidates, including Jamie and Jen Benson, the state rep for my Acton precinct. I guess Jamie and Cory are not concerned about these powerful special interest groups "drowning out" the voices of ordinary citizens. Maybe they even count on it.
The title of their resolution is (deliberately) wrong -- the constitutional amendment that the resolution requests would not "restore" free speech, it would limit it, therefore the title should be "A Resolution to Deny Free Speech to Corporations".
Charlie Kadlec
Acton
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
3:48 pm on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
What now Jamie? President Obama has endorsed SuperPACs, and expects to sweep in big bucks as a result. Take us through the complicated steps whereby Democrats were against SuperPACs before they were for them.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Charlie Kadlec
5:10 pm on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Jamie has company. Senate President Therese Murray called SuperPACS "a destructive force" in a speech January 31st, 2012 (Google "Therese Murray" and "SuperPAC"). I guess they will get together and let Obama know how much they disapprove of his decision to use SuperPACS. Then again, maybe they won't.
Charlie Kadlec
Acton
Allen Nitschelm
6:36 pm on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Obama's previous denouncement of SuperPac's and then his flip-flop decision to support them last Monday night echoes another campaign finance about-face by our Supreme and Annointed Great Leader.
"Parallels to the president's change of heart on campaign finance were also seen in the last election cycle. In the 2008 race, he initially embraced public financing but became the first candidate to reject it. Obama then went on to make history raising $750 million for his campaign."
(Doesn't Jamie always talk about being the first "clean elections" candidate or some such nonsense?)
This reference is from a Google search, Channel 40 news in AR. Read more: http://www.4029tv.com/r/30397450/detail.html
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
12:48 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
There has always been the chance that 'Senator' Jamie could be an empty suit.... or at the very least, regret his lengthy writeup above. What now for his 'constituents'? Perhaps he should consult Cory Atkins 'at large' regarding her parallel fight against the SuperPAC... and upcoming reversal.
We await the words of wisdom - handed down from The Messiah to His Disciples.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III