The Worst Decision in Recent History

With statistics and clear corporate practices now falling within the public light – where disclosure is possible (and that is hardly the uniform rule) – it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission, may just be the most destructive blow to American democracy in the last 100 years. Effectively, it held that mega-rich players, from sugar-daddy billionaires (there are 22 such individuals who have rallied millions and millions of dollars each behind their favorite candidate) to corporations to unions, to form political action committees (PACs, and the ones that can ply their trade without most restrictions are Super-PACs), are (i) provided the same free speech, First Amendment rights, of other “people/citizens,” (ii) have the right to spend unlimited sums of money in support of any cause or candidate as long as there is no direct connection with such candidates (who are subject to campaign restrictions themselves).

Because such Super-PAC-driven campaigns are so huge, their profoundly biased and self-promoting lobbyist-like messages are heavily “repackaging” (read: clever ad campaigns and good writing twisting the truth) their extreme self-centered programs to look like democratic rights with uncompromising success. When hundreds of millions of Supreme Court-enabled “fresh cash” dollars are poured into our system like never before, often pushing corporate messages generally about reducing all forms of environmental and financial regulation, lowering employee rights and continuing massive tax loopholes and favorable rates as the gospel, candidates who speak otherwise are now seen as out-of-step with a media-purchased “impression” of what is now considered conservative mainstream. Say otherwise and risk being marginalized and losing PAC support. Candidates are tripping all over each other trying to appear in step with these oversized Super-PAC messages, and no budding presidential candidate has the slightest ability to generate a real number of convention delegates without massive special interest PAC money.

Since one party is running an incumbent for president (who is already the presumed nominee for the Democratic ticket), it only stands to reason that between the desire for an unregulated environment with low taxes, on the one hand, and the ability to ingratiate billionaire interests with a president who will never forget, Republican candidates are clearly drawing a massively disproportionate amount of Super-PAC money. If the roles were reversed, and the Republicans were fielding an incumbent, one would expect Democrat-leaning PACs to crawl out of the woodwork and, if not dominating the media, at least to step up the ante to a multiple of current Democratic spending. This cannot be about muzzling either conservatives or liberals; it has to be about not putting the Office of the President of the United States (and all the other candidates for other offices) up for sale. Did Citizen United really turn our political scene into a commercial bidding process? What do the numbers show? As of February 19^th, the New York Times reports on the ten top Super-PACs (named below) focused on the Presidential race over the past 12 weeks:

1

Restore Our Future

Created by former aides to Mitt Romney, this super PAC recently pledged to spend $2.3 million in South Carolina. Main activity: Attacking Newt Gingrich (84%)

$20,553,208

96% spent on attack ads

45% of all Rep. spending

2

Winning Our Future

This super PAC was created by Becky Burkett, who served until last year as chief development officer for American Solutions, a PAC that Newt Gingrich founded. Main activity: Supporting Newt Gingrich (42%)

$9,781,172

36% spent on attack ads

21% of all Rep. spending

3

Make Us Great Again

A super PAC that was supporting Gov. Rick Perry of Texas before he left the race, headed by Mike Toomey, Mr. Perry's former chief of staff. Main activity: Supporting Rick Perry (100%)

$3,959,824

0% spent on attack ads

9% of all Rep. spending

4

Endorse Liberty

No known ties to candidate

Endorse Liberty supports Ron Paul's campaign and has spent money on online advertisements. Main activity: Supporting Ron Paul (98%)

$3,430,369

2% spent on attack ads

8% of all Rep. spending

5

Red White and Blue Fund

This committee, founded by a former Iowa advisor to former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, is one of two super PACs supporting his candidacy. Main activity: Supporting Rick Santorum (97%)

$3,117,553

3% spent on attack ads

7% of all Rep. spending

6

Our Destiny

This super PAC supported Jon M. Huntsman Jr. before he left the race. A former Huntsman campaign aide, Fred Davis, helps run the committee. Main activity: Supporting Jon M. Huntsman Jr. (100%)

$2,453,204

0% spent on attack ads

5% of all Rep. spending

7

Citizens for a Working America PAC

No known ties to candidate

First organized for the 2010 midterm elections, this super PAC was reported to be raising money to help Michele Bachmann's campaign, but in late December began paying for advertisements supporting Mitt Romney. Main activity: Supporting Mitt Romney (100%)

$455,000

0% spent on attack ads

1% of all Rep. spending

8

9-9-9 Fund

This super PAC supported the candidacy of Herman Cain, the former C.E.O. of Godfather's Pizza, before he suspended his campaign in December. Main activity: Supporting Herman Cain (100%)

$418,445

0% spent on attack ads

1% of all Rep. spending

9

Priorities USA Action

Bill Burton, a former Obama White House aide, heads this Democratic super PAC, which has not been as active as its Republican counterparts. Main activity: Attacking Mitt Romney (100%)

$382,344

100% spent on attack ads

97% of all Dem. Spending

10

Santa Rita SuperPAC

No known ties to candidate

A Texas committee that supports Ron Paul's candidacy, this super PAC aims to buy television advertising time in crucial primary states like South Carolina. Main activity: Supporting Ron Paul (100%)

$317,541

0% spent on attack ads

1% of all Rep. spending

But lest we believe that such Super-PACs are focused only on major federal issues and candidates, the effect of billionaires and corporations recasting states as their friendly playgrounds is also reaching sinister proportions, to the extent that the best interests of individual voters and most Americans have never been less important. By way of illustraton, New York Times (February 12^th) examined one such Super-PAC and its focus on legislation in Virginia. “The American Legislative Exchange Council was founded in 1973 by the right-wing activist Paul Weyrich; its big funders include Exxon Mobil, the Olin and Scaife families and foundations tied to Koch Industries. Many of the largest corporations are represented on its board.

“ALEC has written model legislation on a host of subjects dear to corporate and conservative interests, and supporting lawmakers have introduced these bills in dozens of states. A recent study of the group’s impact in Virginia showed that more than 50 of its bills were introduced there, many practically word for word. The study, by the liberal group ProgressVA, found that ALEC had been involved in writing bills that would:

¶Prohibit penalizing residents for failing to obtain health insurance, undermining the individual mandate in the reform law. The bill, which ALEC says has been introduced in 38 states, was signed into law and became the basis for Virginia’s legal challenge to heath care reform.

¶Require voters to show a form of identification. Versions of this bill passed both chambers this month.

¶Encourage school districts to contract with private virtual-education companies. (One such company was the corporate co-chair of ALEC’s education committee.) The bill was signed into law.

¶Call for a federal constitutional amendment to permit the repeal of any federal law on a two-thirds vote of state legislatures. The bill failed.

¶Legalize use of deadly force in defending one’s home. Bills to this effect, which recently passed both houses, have been backed by the National Rifle Association, a longtime member of ALEC.

“ALEC’s influence in the Virginia statehouse is pervasive, the study showed. The House of Delegates speaker, William Howell, has been on the board since 2003 and was national chairman in 2009. He has sponsored or pushed many of the group’s bills, including several benefiting specific companies that support ALEC financially, like one that would reduce a single company’s asbestos liability. At least 115 other state legislators have ties to the group, including paying membership dues, attending meetings and sponsoring bills. The state has spent more than $230,000 sending lawmakers to ALEC conferences since 2001.

“Similar efforts have gone on in many other states. The group has been particularly active in weakening environmental regulations and fighting the Environmental Protection Agency. ALEC’s publication, “E.P.A.’s Regulatory Train Wreck,” outlines steps lawmakers can take, including curtailing the power of state regulators.” I cannot think of anything more un-American than tilting the playing field so that ordinary Americans are now marginalized in the running of their governments to the voices of the richest segment of our society. This is state-sanctioned corruption of the democratic model of government.

One potential constitutional amendment giving Congress the right to regulate campaign spending has been introduced in the Senate, but since the U.S. constitution is the most difficult such document to be amended in the democratic world, passage is exceptionally unlikely (three quarters of the state legislatures have to pass it after a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate). Another bill would require full disclosure of contributors, still a long-shot in a deadlocked do-nothing Congress. Critics say the Supreme Court was simply out of touch with reality: “‘I’m not sure they grasped the practical effects of the decision they were rendering,’ Sen. Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo.), a co-sponsor of the constitutional amendment on campaign finance, suggested last week.” Washington Post, February 13^th. The magnitude of that understatement is staggering.

I’m Peter Dekom, and when a small group of rich people run the country at their whim and pleasure, we begin to look less like a democratic powerhouse and more like a banana republic.