29 October, 2012Citizens United and You

No matter what happens in this election, one thing is certain; the Citizens United decision has changed the election funding process in ways that are bad for ordinary people. The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision opened the door for a flood of money from Democratic and Republican political super-PACs and campaigns, wealthy individuals, and corporations, to influence the outcome of elections.

During the presidential primaries this spring and summer we all saw various millionaires propping up the campaigns of one republican presidential candidate after the other. Many of these candidate's extreme policies, in and of themselves, should have made their primary bids fairly short. But the Republican Party would not or could not rally around Governor Mitt Romney. That set the stage for moneyed interests like Sheldon and Miriam Adelson to contribute, since July, more than 30 million dollars to those campaigns, according to the Bloomberg Business Week. These wealthy individuals, with apparently nothing better to do than play a chess-game with the electoral process for their own amusement, would drag out before the American public a stream of presidential hopefuls ranging from the comical, the delusional, the hateful, the hypocritical, and the cynical.

Here in Massachusetts my phone has been ringing off the hook with very negative calls against Elizabeth Warren. I’ve gotten calls from Crossroads GPS, Senator Olympia Snowe, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and an anonymous female voice warning me about Warren’s record. I’ve gotten mailers from Americans for Tax Reform, the US Chamber of Commerce and others warning me about Elizabeth Warren’s threat to the free trade system. I can’t watch TV without constant commercial interruptions condemning Elizabeth Warren; the candidate I am going to vote for, regardless of the expensive smear campaign against her.

According to the October 28^th Springfield Sunday Republican, 10 wealthy business couples or individuals in Massachusetts have contributed more than 7 million dollars to federal and state political contests this year. The article comments that, "…it would be naïve to think that high-powered business executives aren’t expecting a return on their investment," according to Mary Boyle, a spokeswomen for Common Cause’s National Office in Washington, DC.

I know that my honestly given $15 contribution to the candidate(s) of my choice won’t get me a private meeting with them. I don’t think it will gain me entrance to a (what was once smoke-filled) room full of petty movers and shakers. And I also don’t think I’ll be on any politician’s speed-dial list of donors. But the most troubling aspect of this Supreme Court decision is how it disenfranchises millions of working people who make $5 or $10 dollar contributions to the candidate of our choice. With one check, a guy like Sheldon Adelson can cancel out the input and hopes of millions of people like me.

jt

THE REPUBLICAN FIVE-POINT PLAN

Aside from the obvious characters who put "Let’s put WHITE back in the White House" bumper stickers on their cars, or the billionaires who seem to have nothing better to do than write million dollar checks to the Romney/Ryan campaign, I really cannot understand why a rational person would even consider voting for them.

Governor Romney has stated that he has an economic plan to create 12 million new jobs. But this "Five-Point Plan" completely lacks any specifics, except cutting funding for the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) which Romney announced in the first debate. This plan simply repackages the same old republican rhetoric in new clothes.

Many Americans may not have even seen this plan, so here it is in brief:
Point one says "…by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear, and renewables." What this means is scrapping environmental protection so that they can drill, baby, drill.

Point two says… "When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice, and every child should have a chance." Point two actually means school vouchers and defunding public schools.

In point three they talk about " …forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences." Trade agreements per se aren’t big job creators — they increase exports, but they also increase imports. And while a confrontation with China is the implicit subtext, Romney is apparently unwilling to get explicit.

In point four Romney states he will "…cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget." This claim rests on the assertion that he will offset huge tax cuts by closing loopholes — but he refuses to name a single example, because tax breaks are popular. Also, Medicaid — once his biggest single spending target — turns out to have substantial public support so he has stopped talking so loudly about turning power over to the states and making it a voucher system.

And finally in point five he says he will "…champion small businesses by reducing taxes, simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business, and by repealing and replacing Obamacare." His tax cuts for small businesses, actually means tax cuts for rich people; the hedge funds, not mom-and-pop stores.

This five point plan panders to people’s frustrations in a poor economy while at the same time offering no tangible specifics or realistic policy plans for how it will get us the 12 million more jobs it promises. In their debates, both Romney and Ryan have avoided the facts, insisted their plan won’t cost the public anything, and contradicted their own previous claims.

jt