Whether or not the five conservatives on the Supreme Court intended to--is there really any doubt at this point?--they've enabled billionaires like Adelson (and the Koch Brothers) to exert such outsized influence that the opinions and actions of regular people seem pointless. Corporations and the extremely wealthy could literally control the airwaves this summer and fall if they wanted to; there's nothing at all standing in their way aside from the depth of their (essentially bottomless) pockets. President Obama's unprecedented, election-defining $500 million in online donations in 2008 is beginning to look like chump change.
I strongly agree with kos and others that we need to fight fire with fire. Liberal billionaires need to step up and match the spending of their conservative counterparts in this election or we could face the kind of spending imbalance that helped Walker survive his recall election. It's essential that we're not outspent on a national level, and more importantly, in Congressional and local races. This would be a short-term solution, though, and I think it should be only one part of the left's response to the post-Citizens United SuperPAC deluge.
The second important part is intertwined with the first: re-electing the President, and making sure the Democrats retain control of the Senate. I know it's said every election, but the stakes are incredibly high here. Four current members of SCOTUS are over 70 years old: Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. It's almost certain that whoever's elected president this fall will replace at least one of them, potentially all four. If Obama is reelected, Ginsburg and Breyer could retire; if Romney wins, then Scalia and Kennedy could safely retire--either of these scenarios would reinforce the status quo for another decade or two. But it's also increasingly likely that more than two will leave or die, giving the next president a chance to change the ideological majority, potentially giving us a 7-2 conservative court that would no doubt continue to expand corporate power in unprecedented and terrifying ways, or a 6-3 liberal one that would do the opposite. Even if we're deeply disappointed by President Obama, as I am, we must do everything we can to re-elect him because of this reality.
Third, we have to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate political spending. Even if Obama is reelected and he's allowed to appoint liberal justices to replace Scalia and Kennedy (ending in a 6-3 liberal majority), we will still have to undo the deregulatory damage of Citizens United. This fall, we have to make passing Move to Amend's proposed Constitutional Amendment a plank in the Democratic Party's platform. It's written in fairly readable legalize:
Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.
The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]
Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
Section 3
Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
It does two important, increasingly necessary things: it both ends the legal concept of corporate personhood, and it allows Congress to regulate political spending. Both of these changes are essential to ensuring the long-term health of our democracy. And, as luck would have it, the concepts in the Amendment are wildly popular: 80% of Americans were opposed to Citizens United immediately after it was announced, 65% of them strongly opposed. If polled, 65% of Americans wouldn't strongly agree that the sky is blue, let alone that Citizens United was a terrible, democracy-destroying decision.
This means there is strong potential to pass the Amendment (perhaps even by Convention). The national Democratic Party should take this public sentiment and run with it - as the post-CU poll shows, people could be persuaded to support the effort, and the potential payoff for a victory would be pretty big. It would be a chance for the Democrats to reiterate its stance as the party for the common person, and it could only be good for them to begin pushing the Amendment loudly and often. Loudly and often, as in scheduling multiple votes on the bill in the Senate this summer, and then loudly excoriating the GOP for filibustering what is a widely-supported policy.
But the ultimate benefit would be in making sure that no one--not Sheldon Adelson, not George Soros--would have limitless political power.
No comments:
Post a Comment