Seriously, America?: A pair of House Democrats introduced legislation Tuesday to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling...

sarahlee310:

abaldwin360:

House Democrats push legislation to overturn Citizens United ruling

By Mike Lillis

Sponsored by Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and Donna Edwards (D-Md.), the proposal would amend the Constitution to empower Congress and the states to limit corporate spending on political activities.

“Last year, the Supreme Court overturned decades of law and declared open season on our democracy,” Conyers said in a news release. “It is individual voters who should determine the future of this nation, not corporate money.”

In the controversial Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court ruled that government limits on corporate funding of political broadcasts for or against individual candidates violate the rights to free speech guaranteed under the Constitution.

The ruling effectively undid certain provisions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which was designed to prevent a deluge of corporate money in elections.

[FULL STORY]

Keep an eye on Donna Edwards. She is smart, articulate and liberal, thank goddess.

…

But take a look at some of the article’s first comments, undoubtedly from the teabaggiest of rightwing nutjobs:

When you actually HATE a group of people with different political views MORE than you hate the idea of corporations being afforded the same protection under the Constitution as individuals, no one has to listen to what you say anymore, ever. In fact, you’ve just identified yourself as being that much of a dipshit.

So as one of your favorite comedians has said for the past 10 years or so: Heeere’s your sign. Whether it’ll be spelled correctly or not — who knows?

image: phroyd

…

Class Warfare: Which Side Are You on? - The good news is that there is growing awareness among the 99 percent that they’ve been ripped off; that they’re engaged in a decades-long class war and their side is losing. As a result working Americans are in favor of raising taxes on the 1 percent. And there’s some evidence that the 99 percent are waking up to the problem of big money in politics, the problems caused by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. The bad news is that this may not be enough to save our Democracy. Over the last 30 years, the United States has been looted. The rich and powerful, the 1 percent, have taken a disproportionate share of the economic gains that we’ve all worked for. As a consequence America is teetering on the brink of Plutocracy. To remedy this inequity and restore Democracy, fundamental changes must be made. […] Barack Obama is not a perfect candidate but at least he is willing to talk about class warfare and to propose common sense steps towards economic justice. That’s a big difference from Mitt Romney who doesn’t think we have a class problem or issues with economic fairness and says of people who suggest this “[Its] about envy. It’s about class warfare.”

…

Mystery donor gives $10 million to Crossroads GPS group to run ads against Obama and Democrats – The huge contributions, which make the donors among the top political givers in recent history, offer new evidence of the altered world of campaign finance: After the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, spending by interest groups has risen dramatically. The landmark ruling allowed corporations, unions and nonprofit groups such as Crossroads GPS to spend money directly on electoral politics. Crossroads GPS and its sister group, American Crossroads, hope to spend up to $300 million in the 2012 election cycle, promoting conservative ideas and helping elect Republicans up and down the ballot.

…

BERNIE SANDERS: Congress spends day and night worrying about the wealthy – “This country faces enormous problems, the middle-class is declining, poverty is increasing, we’re worried about global warming, we’re worried about health care, we’re worried about education,” he said, “and the American people are looking to Washington and saying, ‘What’s going on? We have enormous problems, and you’re not addressing those problems.’” “One of the reasons that Congress is not addressing those problems is the power of big money in terms of campaign contributions and in terms of lobbying,” Sanders continued. “Working people are trying to keep their heads above water, and here on Capitol Hill all kinds of money is flooding into this institution so that Congress spends day and night worrying about the wealthy and powerful, and forgetting about the middle-class and working families.” He blasted the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which held that limiting corporate campaign spending violated the First Amendment. […] Sen. Charles Schumer said at the summit that the Citizens United decision was the worst since Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld state laws enacting racial segregation. “Something like 17 people have given half the Republican super PACS half of their money,” he noted. “What is happening to America?”

Hack reporting from the rightwing: Comparing re-election fundraising between Obama and Reagan

JOSH ISRAEL responds to the recent rightwing reports about President Obama’s fundraising endeavors — especially as compared with Ronald Reagan’s:

“Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined,” The (UK) Daily Mail reported Sunday, based on Brendan J. Doherty’s new book The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign. The paper also observed that Ronald Reagan did not have a single fundraising event for his 1984 re-election.

Yeah, well. As Israel points out, there are exactly three reasons for that:

1) the nation’s public financing system for presidential candidates, which went into effect in 1976 and was used by Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush for their re-elections, has fallen apart. […] The five previous presidents needed to raise money for only their primary campaign, as public financing would kick in for the general.Reagan, meanwhile, was able to avoid raising any money entirely because he faced no primary and thus automatically received the Republican nomination and the the public financing that came with it.

2) President Obama is the first president to run for re-election in the post-Citizens United world. While Other Presidents ran against opponents whose fundraising was limited by individual contribution limits, Obama has to keep pace with not just the Romney campaign, but also with outside groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums of money raised from wealthy donors and big corporations, which on balance support Republicans.

3) Also, Unlike most of his predecessors and Mitt Romney, Obama has vowed to not accept PAC money, accept donations from lobbyists, or allow any registered lobbyists to “bundle” contributions for his campaign. That leaves fundraising from generous donors as the only way to afford a modern presidential campaign.

Read the whole thing…

image: Daily Kos

The filibuster is why we can’t have nice things

What If There Was No Filibuster?

Joshua Green: “Let’s take only the Obama presidency. Had the filibuster not applied,

the United States would have a market-based system to control carbon emissions, which would limit the damage from global warming, vitalize the clean technology sector, and challenge other large polluters like China and India to do the same.
The new health care law would have a public option.
Children of undocumented immigrants who served two years in the military or went to college could become US citizens.
Women paid less than their male colleagues because of their gender would have broader legal recourse against their employers.
Billionaires would not be able to manipulate the political system from behind a veil of anonymity.”

via: Political Wire

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) warned that unless Americans can undo the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, the most narrow special interests will end up running the country. “The super PACs, to me, are stealth funds that com into a state,” Cardin said. “You don’t know when they’re coming in and we’re all concerned about it. We know that corporate America is financing most of this.” “This is the special interests,” he continued. “This is the people representing some of the most narrow special interests in this country. The Supreme Court, in Citizens United, opened this up. It’s wrong. It shouldn’t happen. We should have a regulated fund. We already have too much money going into the campaigns now.” – Raw Story

GOP Groups Plan $1 BILLION Push for Romney (that’s billion, with a B) — “Republican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives — including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November’s elections for the White House and control of Congress,” Politico reports. “That total includes previously undisclosed plans for newly aggressive spending by the Koch brothers, who are steering funding to build sophisticated, county-by-county operations in key states… Koch-related organizations plan to spend about $400 million ahead of the 2012 elections — twice what they had been expected to commit.” – Political Wire

Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney (and the GOP’s capitulation to Big Money) – In the primary season alone, Romney’s rich friends invested $52 million in his Super PAC, Restore Our Future – a number that’s expected to more than double in the coming months. This unprecedented infusion of money from America’s monied elites underscores the radical transformation of the Republican Party, which has made defending the interests of 0.0001 percent the basis of its entire platform.“Money buys power,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman observed recently, “and the increasing wealth of a tiny minority has effectively bought the allegiance of one of our two major political parties.” In short, the political polarization and gridlock in Washington are a direct result of the GOP’s capitulation to Big Money. – Tim Dickinson | Rolling Stone

Mitt Romney is meeting with Sheldon Adelson — the billionaire casino magnate and big Newt-Gingrich supporting super-PAC donor — in Las Vegas on Tuesday, according to CBS News and CNN. …Adelson and his wife, Miriam, gave $20 million to Winning Our Future, the pro-Gingrich super PAC. — HuffPo

Axelrod: A handful of plutocrats are trying to buy the United States – “There was a report this morning that the Republican Super PACs, apart from Romney and apart from his own super PAC, intend to spend a billion dollars in this campaign setting up shadow state organizations—district-wide organizations—as well as running media. So a handful of plutocrats of billionaires with a special interest agenda are going to try and buy this government in this election, and the stakes of that are pretty profound. I’m obviously concerned about the implications for our race, but we’ve braced ourselves and we’ve been talking about this for some time. It’s a concern. It’s one of my big concerns. But for congressional candidates, it’s gotta be a nightmare. We saw in the last election, in the last 3 weeks of those campaigns, Super PACs swooped in and spent huge amounts of money in the final 3 weeks to influence those congressional races and turned a lot of races with their money. I think you can anticipate that in spades this year.” – Raw Story

GOP Groups Plan $1 BILLION Push for Romney (that’s billion, with a B) – Political Wire

image: realpolitiks

Three GOP fundraisers familiar with the plans of the billionaire Koch brothers and their rich friends told The Huffington Post that their donor network is expected to funnel this year tens of millions into conservative groups, including the National Rifle Association, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, the National Right to Life Committee, Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, the 60 Plus Association and the American Future Fund. By spreading their wealth throughout the conservative ecosystem, the Kochs can exploit trusted brands with passionate followings that reach beyond the Tea Party base. These three sources all requested anonymity since they are not authorized to speak about the Koch donor network’s plans.

Koch Brothers Plan To Funnel Tens Of Millions To Conservative Allies To Influence 2012 Elections

We have exactly 155 days: Obama or Romney

Romney’s PR HQ (Buzzfeed politics) has a roundup of every emo firebagger they could find, who’s had a ‘sad’ since the 2010 elections (which they didn’t bother to vote in). They want us all to know that their shattered hopes and dreams are the reason they’re not contributing to Obama’s campaign this time around:

Most Obama Donors Not Giving Again

“In 2008, more than 550,000 gave more than $200 to Barack Obama, entering their names in the longest list of individual donors ever seen in American politics,” Ben Smith reports.

“But now, as Obama struggles to keep pace with his 2008 fundraising clip, that list offers a cross-section of Democratic disappointment and alienation. According to a BuzzFeed analysis of campaign finance data, 88% of the people who gave $200 or more in 2008 — 537,806 people — have not yet given that sum this year. And this drop-off isn’t simply an artifact of timing. A full 87% of the people who gave $200 — the sum that triggers an itemized report to the Federal Elections Commission — through April of 2008, 182,078 people, had not contributed by the end of last month.”

I don’t know if these people are actually ‘real’ or more like urban legends — like the woman quoted in the article who says she wanted a more expansive health care bill: “We were a little upset about healthcare. I really, really wanted that public option,” Mrs. Leitzinger said (Really?! Still? I guess Obama should’ve just put that law through himself–who needs Congress?) — but what I do know is that there will be only two choices on November 6: Obama or Romney. And, sorry kids, as much as you hate hearing it — not choosing IS choosing.

In the next five months because of Citizens United, corporate interests and the one percent are going to try to buy themselves a president by injecting $1 BILLION into super PACs for national advertising to sway independents and moderates over to Romney. And as sure as the sun will rise in the morning, every fundamentalist, teabagger, and rightwinger — all the social conservatives — will be in line to vote for the Republican. Serious question: just how far do you think your progressive ideals and beliefs will go with “President Romney”? Remember George W — multiply him by Tea Party.

We only have five months. I haven’t gotten everything I wanted from Obama — but who’s ever gotten everything they want from one person in the entire history of the world? I am able to realize that I’ve been happier with what he’s done, with what he represents, and especially with his potential than I ever would have been with McCain/Palin (that still makes me shudder!). Four more years of Obama extends his potential — and ours. The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney doesn’t care about the things I care about — he doesn’t even pretend to care. No I don’t want to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest, paid for by cutting programs and services to the neediest, with austerity for the rest of us — the not-wealthy. There’s no way Romney would ever consider issues or policies that I think are important. And there’s the deciding factor for me.

Because of this article, I contributed today and will continue through November 5. Maybe you should think about it too.

Do you really want to take a chance of waking up on November 7 with Romney as the winner?

It’s a great day for Citizens United, Wisconsin!

Billionaires buying the White House

As long as billionaires are essentially funding Mitt Romney’s campaign with $10 million donations, Barack Obama can fundraise with as many fashion designers and movie stars as he pleases. Because being bought by billionaires is not the same as getting help from Anna Wintour and Sarah Jessica Parker. Sorry, but it’s not. – via: inothernews

Political Wire:A well-placed source in the Sheldon Adelson camp tells Forbes that further donations from the casino billionaire to Super PACs supporting Mitt Romney will be “limitless.” The source says Adelson will do “whatever it takes” to defeat President Obama and that “no price is too high” to protect the U.S. from what he sees as Obama’s “socialization” of America.

What’s $100 million to Sheldon Adelson? As NPR White House correspondent Ari Shapiro notes today, $100 million constitutes the same percentage of Adelson’s wealth that $300 to $400 does for normal Americans. As Shapiro tweets: “Sheldon Adelson says he may spend $100m on this presidential race. As a % of wealth, that would be like a typical US family giving $360.” — The Atlantic

image: Mother Jones

McConnell doesn’t want you to know which billionaires want to buy a Republican for the White House

Sam Stein reports on why Mitch McConnell wants to protect the very wealthy from your “scrutiny” and “backlash” –

In a series of speeches and interviews over the past day, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued against adding a further layer of disclosure to the campaign finance system, suggesting that the Obama administration would use it to browbeat political opponents.

The Kentucky Republican has long been one of Congress’ foremost advocates of a far-reaching interpretation of First Amendment rights. And his remarks, first to Fox News, then to the Faith and Freedom Conference and finally to the American Enterprise Institute, followed in that vein.

…Donors to politically active nonprofit groups, he said, do not deserve to be subjected to public scrutiny or backlash.

That’s really very interesting, considering that Buzzfeed (Romney’s personal online PR firm) is reporting that Santorum’s old sugar daddy, Foster Friess, says he’s going to donate to Romney’s campaign “undercover:”

“Well I’m going to do that more undercover, I’m going to do it through a lot of c4′s so it’s not so high profile,” Friess said at the Faith and Freedom Conference, where he is scheduled to speak on Saturday. “I was stunned to see how much attention — I had no idea what happened, I must have had 60 or 70 interviews.” “So I think if I do it through c4′s, I can keep a lower profile which is probably better.” Friess explained the tactic further. “If you give to a c4, it doesn’t get disclosed,” Friess said. ”If you give to a c4, it doesn’t get disclosed,” Friess said. “So if I give money to various organizations, nobody knows what I’m giving. Even my wife won’t know.”

Notice they were both at the Faith and Freedom Conference.