SCOTUS could make the Koch brothers supreme dicators of America

Meet your New Supreme Dictators!
**This picture is not mine.**

UPDATE: There’s not been a ruling yet as far as I can tell; I might have gotten the date wrong.  Anyway, no verdict yet.  I’ll stay posted.

Three years after Citizens United……..

We’re at it again.  The Supreme Court of the United States will decide the case McCuthceon v. FEC.   Believe me, if the plaintiff wins, which is likely considering the fact that every suit the Roberts court heard involving campaign finance, restrictions were struck down.

The main plaintiff is Shaun McCuthceon, a filthy rich guy from Alabama who wants to dump cash on elections so crazy teabaggers win.   Luckily, there’s a limit to how much money filthy rich people can dump on elections.

Shaun McCuthceon, with help from his friends at the Republican Party, wants to change that.  Really.  WHAT THE HELL DOES HE THINK A SUPERPAC IS FOR?

Basically, McCutceon wants to strike down common sense laws designed to prevent corruption.  The GOP needs an edge.  Their approval ratings are at a record low now, so, as usual, they cheat.

Striking down the law could lead to Congress putting fundraising even higher on the list of priorities.  As the government responds less and less to its people, this is the last thing we need.

A little while ago, I wrote a post on how much of a priority fundraising has taken in Congress.   Working on that post, I listened to a shocking This American Life piece on campaign finance.  In Act III, John McCain (who along with Russ Feingold sponsored the McCain-Feingold Act that aimed to keep money out of politics) says of SCOTUS:

The questions they asked it showed they had not the slightest clue as to what a political campaign is all about.  The role of money that it plays in political campaigns and I remember when Russ and I walked out of there, I said, “Russ,” I said. “We’re gonna loose and it’s because they are clueless.”

Feingold pointed out:

It’s never been this way since 1907…that when you buy toothpaste or detergent or a gallon of gas that the next day that money can be used on a candidate that you don’t believe in.  That’s brand new.

Also from the episode:

Money in the political system helps explain why oil companies get big subsidies even while their business is booming; why the government provides flood insurance for rich people to build beech houses in hurricane zones; why corn syrup that goes in soft drinks gets federal subsidies and fruits and vegetables do not. …… It’s why we have a system where even though we passed a comprehensive health care reform bill it’s still illegal for the federal government to negotiate drug prices….People needing a new cancer drug pay eight or ten times as much in America as in any other country.

But the scariest part definitely comes in Act II, which discusses the implication of Citizens United

Even without spending the money, in a lot of instances, there will be changes in laws that’ll benefit special interest because of the threat of millions of dollars in undisclosed contributions to bludgeon somebody who thwarts them.

That’s just with Citizens United imagine what would happen if a member of congress could be lured to make a bad vote, not just by the threat of a super pac attack but by the promise of 500 grand if only they vote a certain way.

We need to get money out of politics.  Now.

If you don’t think Citizens United Effects you, think Again

Welcome, my friends, to the era of unlimited campaign finance.  Thank-you, SCOTUS!  For the past few years, Exxon Mobile can give unlimited amounts to campaigns that trash the environment, while Mother Earth is stuck doing bake sales: anything to compete.

If that doesn’t alarm you, consider the recent piece on The Daily Show regarding holding Wall Street accountable for the financial crisis.  I don’t think this embeds, so watch it here.

Considering the troubled state congress is in, reform is unlikely.  And as this critical New York Times piece shows, there is little chance at reform.  This should be on top of the “most e-mailed” list.

Let me highlight:

“Freshmen are pushed and pushed and pushed to raise money — it’s how they are judged by the leadership and the political establishment in Washington,” said Mr. Miller, who added that he felt the same pressure when he joined the Financial Services Committee in 2003 as a freshman. “It’s only natural that it has got to be on your mind that a vote one way or other is going to affect the ability to raise money.”

After the elections in November, Democratic Party leaders gave a PowerPoint presentation urging their freshman members to spend as much as four hours a day making fund-raising calls while in Washington, and an additional hour of “strategic outreach” holding breakfasts or “meet and greets” with possible financial supporters. That adds up to more time than these first-term lawmakers were advised to spend on Congressional business.

That’s.  Just.  Wrong.

There’s also a Huffington Post article from January on this issue.  Just look at these schedules:

So in terms of time, the donors are just as important as you, the constituent.  Right?

Wrong:

Congressional hearings and fundraising duties often conflict, and members of Congress have little difficulty deciding between the two — occasionally even raising money from the industry covered by the hearings they skip. It is considered poor form in Congress — borderline self-indulgent — for a freshman to sit at length in congressional hearings when the time could instead be spent raising money. Even members in safe districts are expected to keep up the torrid fundraising pace, so that they can contribute to vulnerable colleagues.

Wait?  What?  How is it self-indulgent to raise money during your committee hearings.  YOU WERE ELECTED TO GO TO THESE HEARINGS BY YOUR CONSTITUENTS FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS.  IT’S YOUR JOB TO GO TO THESE HEARINGS FOR GOD’S SAKES.If a doctor sees patients, it’s not “borderline self-indulgent.”  He’s paid big bucks to do it.  A member of congress is paid big bucks to go to his committee hearing.  Not going is the self-indulgent thing.

I’m sorry.  That’s just wrong.

Still, there’s more:

Working a schedule like that as a freshman teaches a member of Congress about the institution’s priorities. “It really does affect how members of Congress behave if the most important thing they think about is fundraising,” Miller said. “You end up being nice to people that probably somebody needs to be questioning skeptically. It’s a fairly disturbing suggested schedule. You won’t ask tough questions in hearings that might displease potential contributors, won’t support amendments that might anger them, will tend to vote the way contributors want you to vote.”

Fundraising should not be more important than constituents.  Lobbying groups did not vote representatives in: the people did.

On the other hand, your Democratic congressman might be in office only because of people like your neighbor, who votes for whoever has better TV ads:

But without the DCCC pushing members to raise cash, Grijalva himself may have suffered. In 2010, a Tea Party candidate came from nowhere and almost knocked off the cash-strapped incumbent. The DCCC stepped into spend nearly $200,000 on the campaign, likely helping keep him in his office.

Citizens United is just one rock in this avalanche.  What we really need is an overhaul of campaign finance.  Sure, it’s one thing to travel around your district shaking hand: that’s necessary.  It’s another if candidates need money for $500,000 prime-time TV.

Sadly, with the current state of Congress, we can’t expect reform anytime soon.