Why We Need Public Financing of Political Campaigns

The American political scene is inherently corrupt, and it will remain so until we have public financing of campaigns. The latest example of how the system itself is fundamentally flawed, is the story of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton & her supposed fundraising. Rep. Norton was apparently caught on audio tape begging for money from a lobbyist. Now, I am not suggesting that Rep. Norton is corrupt, but the system she has to navigate through certainly is. It is an environment that invites corrupt activity. I am sure this is a routine part of the job for members of Congress - just normal fundraising. And Rep. Norton technically may not have crossed the line into illegality, because she never specifically promises anything in exchange for a donation. (she knew she was leaving a voicemail recording... so there is really not much of a there there in terms of a scandal, unless the House Ethics Committee can find some technical violation).

But (even though I am skeptical of the source for good reason) the story highlights a broken system. The current system presents inherent conflicts of interest. It is hard for a member of Congress to argue that they are working for the average constituent, when they are really beholden to special interests and their powerful lobbyists.

The most troubling part of the recording is when Rep. Norton points out one of her committee posts, suggesting influence. Again... the issue for me is the inherent institutional corruption surrounding our politics.

If all candidates drew from a public pool, had to work with the same amount of resources, and were precluded from asking for money from the outside, it would make them more responsive and accountable to the people who they actually have a responsibility to represent - their constituents (and on larger legislative issues... the American people as a whole). Currently, corporations and trade groups hold sway over just about every major issue facing this Country.

Reaction to Supreme Court Decision on Corporate Money in Campaigns

Reaction to yesterday's Supreme Court Decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The other reactions let me know that I wasn't the only one blown away.


Listen to NPR reports here and here.


Congressman Grayson

Howard Fineman


Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment

U.S. Supreme Court Embraces Corruption

Court rules 5-4 to remove certain corporate spending limits for campaigns.

From the Washington Post:

By MARK SHERMAN
Thursday, January 21, 2010; 10:18 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.
The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

It's interesting (and fitting in a way) that this ruling would come just as Health Care Non-Reform is perhaps taking its last breaths, after months of being changed, watered down at every turn, and dismantled by the powerful insurance lobby which threw millions of dollars into all sorts of campaigns to kill it. Even if some sort of Health Care bill passes...the insurance industry has already used its power (and the members of Congress that it owns) to shape the legislation in a way that would favor big insurance companies. So they had all bases covered either way.

The Supreme Court move will allow the insurance companies & other corporate interests to reward the members of Congress that they already own...and to (literally) buy more politicians. It's like a D.C. meets Nevada kind of thing. It makes Prostitution legal in the U.S. Congress... & turns the Capitol into a legal brothel.

Read the full decision here, or in window below.

Is Everyone For Sale?

I wonder if Obama will really change Washington when I read stories like this. Both of the "reform" and "change" candidates (although McSame is as phony as can be on "change") have gotten tons of money from Fannie and Freddie lobbyists. I will be watching to see whether he reforms campaign finance.... will he require all candidates to drink from the same Public cup...with a limit on how much money can come from the Democratic or Republican Parties (or any other Party)? Will he stop the system of "bundling"? or will he keep the same corrupt system in place?

I understand that this time around he had to go private, because he would have been steamrolled by Republican Party money. But will he change it once in office? This is something he will have to tackle in his first term... that's if he is able to somehow defeat John McSame.... which will likely require a miracle.

I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and give him a chance to change the system once elected. He was in a tough position this time around. But these reports still raise questions.

****************************

Related Articles

Democrats are the Darlings of Wall Street

Both Candidates taking money from Wall Street

Report from Reuters

Report from the Charlotte Observer

Obama Opts Out of Public Financing System

GOOD.

The Obama campaign has 1.7 million donors. That IS Public Financing.

If you want to see the Video at his website, CLICK HERE

WHY did he opt out?

Because he has a serious advantage here. Because, for the first time in recent history, The Democrats have a serious money advantage.

While Obama has done his part to get most of the 527's to stand down, Senator Straight Talk is there saying that he can't control everything that The RNC does, let alone the GOP 527's.

Now, opting out of the Public Financing System,which means that Obama will be able to raise as much money as his donors will supply...

COUPLED with his devotion to putting into full throttle- The 50 State Strategy, which includes that voter registration drive in ALL 50 STATES...

means that Obama is playing serious offense.

He WILL force the GOP to defend places that they'd never thought they'd have to and spend money that they simply don't have. It's 'in-your-face' politics, and GOOD - the Democrats need to be playing that FINALLY.

Obama and His Threat to ' Business as Usual' in Washington

Hat tip: Jack and Jill Politics

This relates to the story I posted below about Obama passing his One Millionth Donor down below, and how Obama's campaign threatens the status quo of Washington, and they don't like it.

Why the War on Obama
By Robert Parry
February 26, 2008

While some cynics still view Barack Obama’s appeal for “change” as empty rhetoric, it’s starting to dawn on Washington insiders that his ability to raise vast sums of money from nearly one million mostly small donors could shake the grip that special-interest money has long held over the U.S. government.


This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama.

Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.

Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.

So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”
.........................................


Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign – having burned through $130 million and needing a $5 million emergency loan from the Clintons’ personal finances – has gone hat in hand to some of the special interests with a strong stake in protecting the Washington status quo.

For instance, campaign finance director Jonathan Mantz met with donors from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in a Washington hotel lobby when these pro-Israel AIPAC supporters were in town for other business, the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 14.

The approach made sense because these pro-Israeli lobbyists remain wary of Obama’s advocacy of high-level talks with Iran, his opposition to the Iraq War, and his skimpier record of supporting Israel when compared with Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

One former Israeli official told me that the Israeli government feels it can work with Obama, Clinton or McCain, but that the Israeli lobby in the United States is adamantly opposed to Obama, preferring Clinton because “they own her.” The ex-official said the lobby has some concern, too, with McCain because of his independent streak.

Like other powerful lobbies, AIPAC is threatened by Obama’s ability to raise large sums of money from everyday Americans, thus reducing the need of Washington politicians to hold out their tin cups to AIPAC’s legendary network of wealthy donors.
..........................

Rest of article is HERE.


Think about what the author has written. Barack Obama is a threat because he has connected with THE PEOPLE, and has been fully funded by THE PEOPLE. It's articles like this that make me shake my head in disgust, and explain more than a little bit about Obama's candidacy. I believe THE PEOPLE have wanted, for a long time, to believe that they can make a difference. For so long, they have watched as THEIR GOVERNMENT pulled away from them, frustrated them, disgusted them. Made them feel as if they didn't count and that they were impotent to do anything about it. When Obama tells them that they can, it awakens a fundamental AMERICAN SPIRIT that, deep down, we all have, no matter our background.

I wonder if the MSM will pick up on this story....why do I believe the answer to this question is HELL NO.

Obama Passes ONE MILLION DONOR MARK

Sometime, last night, the ONE MILLIONTH DONOR signed onto Barack Obama's campaign.

ONE MILLION DONORS.

One million people who have said, I believe in this campaign.

This is the core of why I believe Obama should reject public financing. Why should he take something that will handicap him? He doesn't take lobbyist or PAC money. So, let the donors decide their funding level of his campaign.


If you'd like to join one million others: BarackObama.com

Dear Senator Obama, about this public financing stuff....

Dear Senator Obama:

Congratulations on running an excellent campaign so far. I'll make this letter short and sweet.

On the subject of accepting Public Financing of a General Election Campaign?

HELL.TO.THE.NAW.

You gotta be kidding me.

Your grassroots operation is taking in about ONE MILLION DOLLARS A DAY..

And, you're going to let McCain, who doesn't have a fundraising pot to piss in goad you into handicapping yourself like this?

HELL.TO.THE.NAW.

You have a public financed campaign - the hundreds of thousands of donors that have given to you.

Say that you continue to not accept lobbyist or PAC money, and be on your merry way.

Let McCain choke on Public Financing.

Sincerely,
rikyrah
Mirror On America