Citizens' Daily Lobby

If you think politics should be for people (the old fashioned, biologically embodied kind, that is) add a few more corporations to your boycott list.   Other corporate donors to Minnesota Forward, the conservative PAC making headlines for its support of Tom Emmer,  are the Regis Corporation (mall salons), Best Buy, and Securian Insurance.

I think those of us boycotting these corporate donors need to make our position very clear.  We are not boycotting to protest corporations buying conservative candidates.  We are boycotting because we do not believe corporations should buy ANY candidate in any election.  Period.

If you are one of those people who firmly believe your dollar is better spent at Target than at WalMart, you might want to reconsider.   Target is taking advantage of the Citizens United decision, and the corporation is casting its vote with the far right in Minnesota.  The corporation contributed over $150,000 dollars to Tom Emmers, GOP candidate for governor.  Emmers is a poster child for the Moral Majority, or whatever they are calling themselves these days.   He is anti-gay rights and supports Arizona’s  new, draconian immigration law.  His campaign donated to a Christian punk rock group that is on record as saying executing gays is moral.  With 7 kids, Emmer’s not just anti-abortion.    (Can I get an “every sperm is sacred?”)

Target joins 6 other companies that gave at least $100k to the GOP backed political action committee Minnesota Forward. The group freely admits that it is made possible by the Citizen’s United case, and that the group will support pro-business candidates. Story here.   Is it any secret that for-profit corporations are going to support the GOP?   Private industry over government over the individual is the rule of thumb for the free market.

Our ability as private citizens  to influence the government is inversely proportional to the amount of corporate cash flowing into campaign coffers.   It is vitally important that citizens take back their power.  Vote with your dollar to keep corporations out of government.  Shop locally owned small businesses.  Let the megaretailers know you will not give one single dollar of your income to them until they leave government to the people.  Start with Target.  Boycott Target today.   You may join the protest at MoveOn.org.

To hear the Blanche Lincoln campaign tell it, she’s the epitome of Arkansas, the essence of what it means to be an Arkansan, supported from within the state by legions of Arkansas voters and their petty cash, not to mention the Democratic establishment.  Not like that Bill Halter, she says, with his outside backing from those Coastal Liberals, MoveOn.  (Many duly local Arkansas voters are members of MoveOn and are working diligently on his campaign, Ms. Lincoln).

Don’t be gullible, Arkansas.   OpenSecrets.org now has data on campaign financing for Senators, and you can check Ms. Lincoln out here. Most of her funding is from out of state.  Not only that, but during this election cycle she has enjoyed the support of outside groups like Americans for Job Security, described today in the Washington Post as  “shadowy.”  The group, that has spent $1.5 million dollars to defeat her opponent, Bill Halter, doesn’t disclose its donors, but most believe it is backed by business.  Last week, the group made headlines with its racially motivated and widely acknowledged as offensive “Bangalore” ad.  From Greg Sargent of the Post:

…Americans for Job Security, has already gotten a ton of press for their ad featuring residents of India speaking in heavy accents as they thank Halter for exporting jobs to their country. Halter has denied that the company on whose board he served transfered any jobs overseas. But that spot reportedly is backed by a $1 million buy. So a lot of eyeballs are seeing it…

Lincoln, for her part, has denounced the ads. But this group is spending a total of $1.5 million, and perhaps more, to defeat Halter — which will go a long way in Arkansas. To put that sum in perspective, consider that it’s nearly three times the roughly $550,000 that the Halter campaign has on hand right now…

Again, it’s easy to get jaded about this kind of thing. Yet we shouldn’t. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that this group’s spending could help decide this Senate primary — without us ever knowing where the money came from, or who the group is even pulling for. That’s a pretty big deal.

Hopefully, legislation now contemplated by Democrats in Congress will put an end to undisclosed corporate electioneering.  Until then, don’t be taken in by the attractive assumption that local elections are still local. The decision before you is who is the better candidate, not who gets support from the most/least attractive special interests.

I assume that those of us who vote in Arkansas would like to believe our Congressman represent us.   We would like to believe they get most of their campaign support from us, or at least from Arkansas interests, because we all know dollars buy loyalty.  If you have the heart to see your illusions shattered, you can find out who’s paying your Congressman at MapLight.org.  There are a couple of very nice features at this site, including a table breaking down which special interests  gave your Congressman money within 30 days of a vote, what their position on the bill was, and how your Congressman voted.   You may also see exactly where in the country (foreign influence isn’t counted here) the money came from.

Let’s use John Boozman, hero of the Arkansas Conservative voter, as an example.  He receives 70% of his campaign funding from outside his district, and 58% from outside the state.  In fact, 5 Washington DC area zip codes are listed in his top 10 for campaign funding.   He’s surely no outsider.  How’s that for a guy who claims to have the best interests of Arkansas voters at heart?

Blue Dog Democrat Mike Ross fares even worse.  He receives 85% of his campaign contributions from out of his district and 75% from out of state.   Of the top 10 contributing areas by zip code,  nine are in the DC area.

Marion Berry rivals Mr. Boozman with 70% out of district, 59% out of state, and 7/10 highest yield zip codes in  the DC area.  Vic Snyder comes in with by far the best record: 49% out of district, 38% out of state, and only 4 of his top 10 zip codes near DC.

This should come as no surprise to those of us who have followed the health care reform debate and other issues.  Conservatives claim to be the outsiders, and the champions of  what Arkansas voters really want.  In reality, they take more money from outsiders than does the lone liberal from our congressional delegation, who, not coincidentally, is the only one to have voted for the reform that Arkansas voters desperately need.

It’s too bad Senators aren’t yet included on this site.  It would be interesting to see how Blanche Lincoln measures up.

The 2010 campaign season is complicated in Arkansas by the Fiscal legislative session taking place this year.  Several state legislators have their sights set on higher office, but legislative rules better suited for the old system of bi-annual legislative sessions may handicap some officials more than others in their fundraising efforts.  Members of the State House of Representatives are not allowed to raise money during the legislative session, while members of the Senate may do so.  H.R. 1003 was introduced by Rep. Lea and was assigned to the House Rules committee this week, where it was given a thumbs-up .  The bill will extend the current prohibition on fundraising during the legislative session to special and fiscal sessions.   Under the Dome’s Rep. Steve Harrelson questions how this rule will be interpreted for federal elections, which are governed by the Federal Election Commission.

House Speaker Robbie Wills, running for Vic Snyder’s seat in the 2nd District, has given his support to the measure, but it is unclear to what extent his current bankroll (currently over $100,000) influenced that support.  Rep. Joyce Elliott, also seeking the 2nd District seat, and most likely with substantially less money in her war-chest, says she would raise money during the session if allowed to do so.  State Senators Gilbert Baker and Kim Hendren, both running against Senator Blanche Lincoln,  have said that they will not raise money during the session.  Tim Griffin didn’t get a vote, but odds are good he will use the fundraising situation to his advantage in the 2nd District race.  The Baxter Bulletin has the full report.

I have been browsing the Center for Responsive Politics website Opensecret.org to get a feel for corporate and individual donations to political parties and candidates.   I highly recommend it for those who want to know who’s getting how much from whom, and also for those who simply enjoy looking at well-presented data.    A good place to get started is the industry profiles summary from 1990-2010.   Here, industry and a limited number of ideological/single issue groups are compared side by side for amounts contributed to candidates over time.   People (corporations are included here, of course) tend to give their money to those who support their agenda, so it may be reasonable to make some conclusions about party principles based on these industry and ideological donations.  (While it is true that corporations tend to spread their money around to both parties it is also true that certain trends are too big to ignore.)   Think of this as party profiling.

Table: Contributions by political party 1990-2010.  x’s  indicate which party receives the majority of campaign contributions from each listed industry/ideological group.

Hmm… Lobbyists give substantially more money to Republicans no matter which party is in power.   Either they are more easily manipulated, or they sell themselves more dearly than Democrats.   Big Tobacco and Bankers lover the GOP, but the education sector steers clear.    Personality:  Show the GOP the money.  Donors get what they pay for.  The nation’s health and education are secondary interests, at best.

Meanwhile, Democrats are the overwhelming favorites of the gambling industry and hedge funds (gambling at a different level).  Interesting.   Democrats are less risk averse?  More susceptible to corruption?  The party is also the favorite recipient of funds from the education sector and  entertainment industry.  Laywers love the Democratic Party.  Personality:  The Democratic Party is overly given to education, debate, and the arts (shades of elitism, some would say) and takes a tolerant view of vice.

I wouldn’t want to leave out those groups that represent the height of corporate cynicism:  Big Pharma, insurance,  health professionals, and telephone utilities will spend money where they presume the power is, as indicated by the sudden reversal of their giving pattern when Democrats gained control of the Congress and the Presidency.

Of course, this table represents a very broad overview, but the general trend remains the same if you look at the top 100 “heavy hitters“, for example.   Politics is a dirty business, and in terms of accepting corporate money, both parties have much of which to be ashamed.

A Maryland-based non-profit consulting corporation has announced its intention to run for Maryland’s 8th Congressional seat.     In a press release, Murray Hill, Inc. announced its intention to run in the Republican primary.    The decision to run for office is based on the historic Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission decision of last month.

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

Says the company, “It’s our democracy.  We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”

To keep things legal, the corporation’s “designated human,” Eric Hensal, will carry out the necessary but antiquated “humans only” details, like signing forms and physically filing.  In a show of enthusiasm, Hensal says, ““We want to get in on the ground floor of the democracy market before the whole store is bought by China.”

The corporation plans to run an “an aggressive, historic campaign that ‘puts people second’ or even third.”  Campaign manager William Klein plans to use “automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and computer-generated avatars” to get out the vote.

Check them out on Facebook and YouTube.

I will get back to Blanche Lincoln soon, but I am currently busy wrapping my head around the Supreme Court Ruling on the Citizens United Case.   This is the ruling that has, as expected, affirmed the right of corporations to spend virtually unlimited funds in electioneering for/against specific political candidates.  (Corporations are people, too, and their speech is protected under the First Amendment.)  As I understand it, the ruling is extraordinary (meant here in the general, not legal sense because I am not a lawyer) because the Court ruled well outside the actual scope of Citizens claims.   The dissenting opinion, by Justice Stevens, firmly establishes this point.

The Irrationality:

“Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”

“The Court operates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’ most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics. It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well.  The problem goes still deeper, for the Court does all of this on the basis of pure speculation. Had Citizens United …argued that there are virtually no circumstances in which BCRA §203 can be applied constitutionally, the parties could have developed,through the normal process of litigation, a record about the actual effects of §203, its actual burdens and its actual benefits, on all manner of corporations and unions.

Laws such as §203 target a class of communications that is especially likely to corrupt the political process, that is at least one degree removed from the views of individual citizens, and that may not even reflect the views of those who pay for it. Such laws burden political speech, and that is always a serious matter, demanding careful scrutiny. But the majority’s incessant talk of a “ban” [on protected free speech] aims at a straw man.

It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

It is an interesting question “who” is even speaking when a business corporation places an advertisement that endorses or attacks a particular candidate. Presumably it is not the customers or employees, who typically have no say in such matters. It cannot realistically be said to be the shareholders, who tend to be far removed from the day-to-day decisions of the firm and whose political preferences may be opaque to management.

The Probable Effects:

Going forward, corporations and unions will be free to spend as much general treasury money as they wish on ads that support or attack specific candidates, whereas national parties will not be able to spend a dime of soft money on ads of any kind. The Court’s ruling thus dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions—and the narrow interests they represent—vis-à-vis the role of political parties—and the broad coalitions they represent—in determining who will hold public office.

Corporate “domination” of electioneering… can generate the impression that corporations dominate our democracy. When citizens turn on their televisions and radios before an election and hear only corporate electioneering, they may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy. A Government captured by corporate interests, they may come to believe, will be neither responsive to their needs nor willing to give their views a fair hearing. The predictable result is cynicism and disenchantment: an increased perception that large spenders “‘call the tune’” and a reduced “‘willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance.’” McConnell, 540 U. S., at 144 (quoting Shrink Missouri, 528 U. S., at 390).

To the extent that corporations are allowed to exert undue influence in electoral races, the speech of the eventual winners of those races may also be chilled. Politicians who fear that a certain corporation can make or break their reelection chances may be cowed into silence about that corporation. On a variety of levels, unregulated corporate electioneering might diminish the ability of citizens to “hold officials accountable to the people,” [from the majority opinion], and disserve the goal of a public debate that is “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,”   New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964).

At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government today.

(Emphasis is mine.  References have been omitted (…) for the sake of brevity.  This is a brief compilation of quotations from throughout the dissenting opinion).

Rep. Alan Grayson is sponsoring legislation in a pre-emptive response to an anticipated Supreme Court decision to extend corporate personhood to the political arena.  The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act and four other bills would seek to limit direct corporate participation in American politics.  According to the Huffington Post:

Grayson introduced a handful of bills on Wednesday — the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act, the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, the End Political Kickbacks Act, and two other measures.

The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act would impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act would require public companies to report what they spend to influence public opinion on any matter other than the promotion of their goods and services. The End Political Kickbacks Act would restrict political contributions by government contractors.

The other measures would apply antitrust regulations to political committees and bar corporations from securities exchanges unless the corporation is certified in compliance with election law.

“This case is basically about an effort to get around that. Citizens United took corporate money and tried to influence an election,” said Lisa Gilbert of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “These are all pieces of good policy. I hope they draw attention to the potential frightening implications of Citizens United.”

Robocalls, those annoying and invasive taped messages from politicians, are exempt from the national “do not call” registry.    The Federal Trade Commission and Congress excluded the calls because politicians have some unalienable First Amendment right to invade our personal space with annoying and invasive taped messages.    Some states, and ours is one, have banned the calls outright.  Other states have placed restrictions on the calls.  An Iowa conservative group is challenging the constitutionality of the state laws.  It would be the conservatives.  Making robocalls is cheaper than getting a real live person to call and annoy us with political messages.   Progressives are better at getting real live volunteers to call and talk politics with people.  Therefore, banning robocalls gives Progressives an edge (theoretically).    The “official” explanation is that banning robocalls gives better financed candidates an edge.    If this argument is followed to its logical conclusion,  TV and radio commercials should not be allowed, because advertising definitely gives an edge to better financed candidates (now that’s a position I could support).

If there was ever a case of taking the First Amendment in vain, this would be it.