Even before the primary began I fully intended to vote for Hillary Clinton... then Sanders entered the race. Sanders was running on a platform I thought I would never see...single payer, raising the minimum wage, tuition free public college and perhaps most importantly a grassroots funding movement instead of relying on corporate donors. In short it was a “people’s” campaign for a government for, by, and of the people not one controlled and run by corporations.
This had nothing to do with any negative view of Clinton it was simply Sanders better represented my positions and beliefs.
Citizens United
The Citizens United case and related Supreme Court rulings have increased the power of corporate influence on our political system. Those rulings have contributed to a broken campaign finance system that creates distrust, cynicism, and apathy among the voters.
That has never been a controversial position for Democrats. Democrats have opposed the ruling since the beginning but due to the nature of the advantage it would give Republicans have considered it a “necessary evil” and the argument has been the Democratic party can’t “unilaterally disarm” so we need to use the system as well or risk losing too many elections.
That is a practical but at the same time problematic strategy. How do you eliminate something that benefits you? What incentive do you have to overturn that ruling? What are the options?
The issue is “addressed” by taking the position that we need more liberal judges on the court to overturn the decision. There are efforts to pass a constitutional amendment but that is rarely discussed and I never see it promoted by Democratic candidates.
Democrats acknowledge the corrupting influence of that system and have expressed disagreement with the majority opinion in Citizens United but what real choice do we have?
However, this election the discussion has completely changed and I can’t figure out where many Democrats actually stand on the issue.
The Debate over Corporate Donations
Then the subject of corporate donations came up in a debate.
THAT was when something unexpected happened. Clinton took this issue personally and decided to summarily dismiss concerns over corporate donations and accused Sanders and by extension the people that support him of “impugning” her integrity...something I had never even considered...until she made that comment!
It seemed unnecessarily defensive...
I found that argument strange because Democrats generally avoid the question of “integrity” on that issue and argue that is simply an unfortunate reality of our political system.
I suppose Clinton couldn’t make easily make that argument because Sanders was showing there was an alternative approach.
I believe that Clinton is being completely sincere when she feels she is being unfairly criticized for her position...Clinton really doesn’t believe that she is doing anything that should matter to the voters or that they should find objectionable. Her current lead shows that the majority of Democratic voters seem to agree with her.
Making a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow…
Colbert Super PAC Shhh
The Colbert Report probably explained the inherent problems with Super PACs and 501 (c)(4)s better than anyone. He “schooled” his viewers on campaign finance.
Stephen effectively demonstrated the absurdities and workarounds in our campaign finance system through the creation of several legal entities: a non-connected PAC to raise money to influence elections, a Super PAC to raise unlimited contributions from corporations and labor unions, and a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization used to launder contributions to keep donors anonymous.
Finally, he was able to show America the loopholes (or “loop-chasms” as he called them) in the laws designed to regulate coordination between candidates and supposedly “independent” groups. By having his own Super PAC and 501(c)(4), Stephen could evolve right alongside the campaigns—or often be a step ahead of them. His understanding of the possibilities inherent in the legal confusion was keen enough to discover and exploit absurd legalities before it became clear that actual candidates and political activists were doing the same thing.
time.com/...
Somehow I bet Stephen Colbert’s viewers are Sanders’ supporters!
Researchers found that, even after controlled for general political knowledge and other factors, “Colbert Report” viewers had both a higher perceived knowledge and higher actual knowledge about campaign finance groups when compared to those who preferred more conventional news sources.
www.usnews.com/...
I would suggest ALL voters review the Colbert Report and the links provided if they really want to understand how ridiculous and prone to corruption our campaign finance system really is.
What IS Corruption?
Corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
But that isn’t the whole story. It isn’t that simple.
Corruption is a broad term covering a wide range of misuse of entrusted funds and power for private gain: Theft, fraud, nepotism, abuse of power etc. A corrupt act is often - but not necessarily - illegal. In handling corruption you will often face a gray zones and dilemmas...
http://www.corruption-agenda.org/getting-started/what-is-corruption
There are several definitions of corruption depending on the source.
Definitions of Corruption
-
The World Bank uses a straight forward definition on corruption as 'the abuse of public office for private gain'.
-
Transparency International defines corruption as 'the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.'
-
Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) defines corruption as the'misuse of entrusted power for private gain'. Danida's definition corresponds with the conception of corruption in the Danish Penal Code, and other international conventions.
A candidate receiving corporate donations and even individual small donations IS clearly doing that for “private gain”...that “gain” is to fund a candidacy and win an election.
But when is THAT abuse?
There are several ways that occurs and we have now come to accept many of these actions as just a “necessary” component of American politics.
-
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) defines corruption in development co-operations as 'when institutions, organizations, companies or individuals profit inappropriately from their position in the operations and thereby cause damage or loss. This includes giving and receiving bribes, extortion, favoritism and nepotism, embezzlement, fraud, conflict of interest, and illegal monetary contributions to political parties.'
“Bundlers” get political appointments in reward for their fundraising efforts and politicians accept donations from industries they are charged with regulating and that is now also just considered no problem...it’s just politics!
Not a New Problem
Why is corporate influence a problem?
Adam Smith the 18th century economist author of “WEALTH OF NATIONS”considered to be the “father of modern capitalism” wrote the following over 250 years ago:
The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from [the capitalist class], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
This archetypal “capitalist” recognizes that the people are a better source of legislation than corporations.
Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counselors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters.
Yes! THAT Adam Smith the one who the “father of communism” Karl Marx criticized! And yet even those disparate historical figures agreed on this point.
Wow...a capitalist and a communist BOTH agreed that corporations shouldn’t influence and run governments...and YET the Democratic party seems to be split on this issue.
Taxes are certainly part of the influence that corporations have.
www.economicpopulist.org/...
There are Democrats that trivialize corporate influence as a minor “single issue” failing to understand that it is THE issue that affects ALL other issues.
WHY? HOW? WHEN?WHAT?
Even when corporate interests don’t contradict the public’s interests, the people’s concerns are ignored by politicians because they are too busy catering to their wealthy corporate donors. That is not an inflammatory opinion...it is supported by fact.
Professors Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University looked at more than 20 years of data to answer a pretty simple question: Does the government represent the people?
Your opinion literally does not matter...
Their study took data from nearly 2,000 public-opinion surveys and compared what the people wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America has essentially no impact at all.
Put another way, and I'll just quote the Princeton study directly here:
“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
Really think about that for a second.
If you've ever felt like your opinion doesn't matter and that the government doesn't really care what you think, well … you're right.
But, of course, there's a catch.
...unless you're an "economic elite."
If there's one thing that still reliably gets politicians' attention, it's money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a "statistically non-significant impact," Gilens and Page found that economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence.
How could it be that our government, designed to function as a representative democracy, is only good at representing such a small fraction of the population? Just follow the money.
Why? Because purchasing political influence is 100% legal.
For example: Let's say a big bank wants a law that would force taxpayers to bail them out again if they repeat the exact same reckless behavior that crashed the global economy in 2008.
It's perfectly legal for our bank to hire a team of lobbyists whose entire job is to make sure the government gives the bank what it wants. Then, those lobbyists can track down members of Congress who regulate banks and help raise a ton of money for their re-election campaigns. Its also perfectly legal for those lobbyists to offer those same politicians million-dollar jobs at their lobbying firms.
www.upworthy.com/...
If you are really telling yourself corporate influence really doesn’t matter and there are more important issues you aren’t seeing the big picture...Eliminating corporate funding and influence from our political system is the only way to have a government for, by, and of the people.
If you are telling yourself that super PAC money failed to get Jeb Bush elected proves that it isn’t an issue in a national election you are letting one example obscure ALL the other examples of where it worked... brother George W for example!
All Jeb’s! failure shows is something every BILLIONAIRE already knows...not every “investment” pays off!
Leadership is Important
If you are asking what does this have to do with the Democratic primary….the answer should be obvious. When the Democrats benefit from and exploit the campaign finance system they have less incentive to change it. Even if the Democrats don’t “abuse” the system...a naive belief, but OK...It allows the GOP to retain disproportionate power and allows them to obstruct a progressive agenda.
What can the Democratic nominee do? Well that nominee can lead by example. Encourage other politicians to reject corporate donations and Super PACS.
There are some Democratic candidates that are engaging in grassroots fundraising. Those numbers can increase with encouragement from the party’s leader. Every politician that gets elected without corporate backing decreases corporate influence and increases the influence of the politician's’ constituents. Maybe eventually we can get enough votes to actually pass a constitutional amendment or at least get crucial disclosure legislation passed rather than waiting for the Supreme Court to save us from ourselves!
The President is the leader of the Democratic party and can influence down ballot politicians and DNC policies. Even before Citizens United is successfully overturned a president can pressure candidates to reject certain types of donations...like those from “bundlers” who work as lobbyists...or from certain sources like the Private Prison Industry…
The President also has the “bully pulpit” that can be used to galvanize public support for a Constitutional Amendment and to pressure politicians to represent their constituents. The President can call attention to legislation that benefits corporations at the expense of the people. The President CAN be an activist and set policies. The President is supposed to be a leader after all!
Additional links regarding corporate influence.
www.bloomberg.com/...
www.huffingtonpost.com/...
www.demos.org/...
ourfuture.org/...
www.businessinsider.com/...