I couldn't face up to writing about the McCutcheon decision yesterday. It was just too depressing for me and I begged Ken and he bravely shouldered the task with verve and aplomb… and Andy Borowitz. He also began his post by quoting Bernie Sanders: "Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government." This morning, Bernie was on the air at Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman. The short clip embedded up top because Senator Sanders lays out the threat to American democracy inherent in the McClutcheon decision more coherently than anyone else I've seen on TV. And he also talks about forming a coalition to fight back against the predatory plutocrats encroaching on democracy.
You may have seen crazy John Bircher (and neo-fascist) plutocrat Charles Koch take to the friendly pages of the Wall Street Journal yesterday to whine about how persecuted he is by the collectivists. Clueless and avaricious by nature, he claims that "Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government.
Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards."Easy translation would be, if only we could get rid of Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, government regulations… everything the Koch family fascists have fought for generations, all would be right in the world… at least for the plutocrats.
…Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.
This is what Bernie knows he's up against. This week I admired him for doing something that almost no senators ever do-- he started endorsing like-minded candidates in House races across the country. Jumping into the contentious PA-17 primary, Sanders made it clear who the progressive champion is-- state Senator Daylin Leach. "At a time when our country has more income and wealth inequality than any other major country on earth," said Bernie, "and when the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider-- it is imperative that we send candidates like Daylin Leach to the U.S. Congress." Leach's two most serious opponents, Clinton in-law Marjorie Margolies, who is all about working with the Republicans to cut Social Security, and Machine boss-backed Brandan Boyle, who is all about working with the Republicans to outlaw women's Choice, are from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Sanders, an independent, can see that clearly and is willing to lend a hand.
Although the DCCC is ignoring this winnable Wisconsin seat, Bernie also jumped into the fray on behalf of the progressive City Councilwoman from Ashland, Kelly Westlund, who's taking on right-wing Republican Sean Duffy. "Senator Sanders is right," she told us after watching the Democracy Now video. "Freedom of speech does not equal the right for billionaires to buy our elections. Our government is for the people, not just those who can afford to bankroll campaigns. Something has to change and we're lucky to have a champion like Bernie Sanders on our side."
On the same day, Senator Sanders endorsed California progressive Lee Rogers who has been advocating the same principles about dirty money in politics that Sanders has. Rogers, right after the McCutcheon decision was handed down: "This is exactly what we don't need in American politics, more money from millionaires and billionaires pouring into our elections. While middle income Americans are scraping to get by, and can't spare extra money to influence the political system in their favor, the super-wealthy are doing great and can use this money to help create a system that widens the income gap."
You can help Bernie build up a progressive bench in the House here.
This morning there was an extraordinary piece on the NBC News website, of all places, about the rise of the political ultra-rich that wasn't a celebration of the class war victory that the Supreme Court had just handed down to their wealthy corporate allies. "Money and deep-pocketed donors have always played a key role in American politics, but the wealthiest Americans are now flexing their political muscles more than at any time in decades," they began.
Here’s one guarantee from yesterday’s Supreme Court decision: You’re only going to see more money in politics. So if you didn’t think there was enough money in politics before yesterday, then you should be happy about yesterday’s decision. Indeed, when you add the McCutcheon decision (eliminating the aggregate contributing caps) to the Citizens United decision (providing the blueprint for creating the Super PAC era) and the end of matching funds, we’re seeing a financial arms race in American politics. Political spending from outside groups-- either created or bankrolled by American billionaires-- has skyrocketed from $193 million in 2004 and $338 million in 2008, to a whopping $1 billion in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. To put this $1 billion in outside spending in perspective, it’s almost TWICE what John Kerry and George W. Bush spent COMBINED in the 2004 presidential race ($655 million). And it’s THREE TIMES the amount John McCain spent in the 2008 election ($333 million). Another way to look at all of this money: Overall political spending on races (presidential plus congressional) has DOUBLED from $3 billion in 2000 to $6.2 billion in 2012. And in presidential races alone, the combined amount that George W. Bush and Al Gore spent in 2000 (about $250 million) QUADRUPLED to the combined amount Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent in 2012 ($1 billion-plus). And that doesn’t count the political-party spending…
These twin developments -- 1) the rise of the oligarchs and 2) the financial arms race -- raise this important question: Is this any way to run a democracy? The New Yorker’s John Cassidy argues that what the Roberts Court has done with the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions is to take the principle of “one man, one vote” to “one dollar, one vote.” Given the current Supreme Court, the remedies are very limited on how to put limits on political money if money equals speech. So it’s either a constitutional amendment (good luck with that) or more aggressive laws on disclosure (which could at least create a NASCAR-ization to politics where everyone’s “sponsor” is there for all to see). What’s stunning is how little interest there is in Congress to even promote the idea of more disclosure. But bottom line: This system of financing campaigns has now consolidated power in the hands of a few, which neither party should be celebrating. Does any candidate who runs for office want to have a wealthy person dictating the terms of the debate for them by simply using the power of their purse? Over the next week or so, the NBC News Political Unit will have ongoing coverage of the “Rise of the Oligarchs” in American politics. So be on the lookout.
…[T]he BIGGEST winners are the political consultants and the entire industry of American politics. The loser from yesterday’s decision, however, is the individual campaign. With the power of Super PACs (thanks Citizens United) and now the increased bank accounts of the parties (thanks McCutcheon), individual campaigns are going to have less power than they’ve had in a long, long time. An individual campaign has so little control now over its own message and the issues it wants to focus on; it’s all going to be dictated more and more by the outside groups and the billionaires.
