Running The Fat Cats Out of Town

Enter your email address:

Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:

Message:

The ruling allowing unlimited campaign spending is a huge win for special interests. Mark McKinnon and Steve Hildebrand make the bipartisan case for how Congress can fix the political money mess.

The Supreme Court just sucker-punched hope and change and cozied up to the status quo on money and politics. On Tuesday, voters sent a wake up call to Washington, and today the court just gave the voters yet another reason to be mad as hell.

Against the backdrop of angry Massachusetts voters, the Court’s decision today in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowing unlimited spending by corporations and unions in elections means that unless there’s serious, bold campaign finance reform in Washington, the notion of any fundamental “change” in Washington just hit the immoveable object: big money. Politicians who ignore the politics of this decision do so at their peril.

Politicians raise more and more money every year. Voters get more and more disillusioned. Something has to give.

There’s a wall of campaign money that separates regular voters from their representatives, and we believe the only way to fix it now is for Congress to respond to the Roberts Court decision with legislation that puts voters in charge. It is also an answer to the angry voters who, in the words of Sen.-Elect Scott Brown, want candidates “not beholden to the special interests.”

We’ve advised and elected dozens of federal and state candidates from our respective parties. We can tell you, unequivocally, that what ruins a good political leader is the unending chase for campaign contributions. Candidates are forced to travel the country begging wealthy people for money instead of finding solutions to our country’s biggest problems. They hate it, but the system forces them to do it.

That’s why today’s decision is both a scourge and an opportunity. In a nutshell, the Roberts Court overturned a six decade-long prohibition against spending corporate and union treasury money to directly campaign for or against federal candidates.

We both believe that there is too much “interested” money in politics today and not enough of the small donor contributions that drove the Obama campaign’s fundraising. The Citizens United decision makes this bad situation worse. It will unleash an unlimited amount of corporate political spending, and fuel an escalating campaign fundraising arms race among members of Congress to keep up. They spend too much time fundraising already—time that gets in the way of doing the work they’re supposed to do.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat from Arkansas is a perfect example. Senator Lincoln complained recently that she had lost $300,000 due to canceling fundraisers when she was “forced” to be in Washington for the health care vote. Now consider her situation knowing that millions will be spent for or against her because of that vote. It’s a catch-22, and regardless of how we feel about Sen. Lincoln and her positions, why do we let stand a system that forces members of Congress to constantly juggle doing their jobs with the fundraising it takes to keep their jobs?

And voters hate it, too, but for different reasons. A survey by the U of T/Austin said campaign donors are more influential with members of Congress than anyone else. In the same survey, voters ranked themselves dead last. Gallup’s 2009 annual ranking of the honesty and integrity of various professions placed members of Congress lower than ever before. Just nine percent of Americans believed it was an honest and ethical job, ranking it only above lobbyists (which debuted on the list at the bottom), car salesmen, and advertising practitioners.

View as Single Page 12 Back to Top January 21, 2010 | 10:37am Facebook | Twitter | Digg |   | Emails | print Campaign Spending, Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, Supreme Court, Small Donations, Walter Jones, John Larson, Dick Durbin, President Obama  (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies Sort Up Sort Down sort by date: 12 sonofloud

So many mistakes here.... First small donors did not drive Obamas campaign....Wall Street did. And more importantly, allowing corporations to give unlimited amounts of money does not drive the fat cats out of government.....it puts them even more in the drivers seat. PS I am sure there are even more errors in this article but I couldn't make it past the first page of such utter nonsense.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 10:54 am, Jan 21, 2010 Dreamer4Ever

Their point is that corporations spending unlimited money on political campaigns is a bad thing.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 11:23 am, Jan 21, 2010 sonofloud

"unless there's serious, bold campaign finance reform in Washington" We were headed in that direction and the Supreme Court overturned it. You can tell this article was written by 2 people.....it contradicts itself.

Flag It | Permalink 12:32 pm, Jan 21, 2010 Plantagenet

Obama killed "bold campaign finance reform" when he opted out of the campaign finance reform public finance law and took unlimited corporate donations and spent almost a billion dollars getting himself elected in 2008. Its hypocritical of democrats to complain about the SCOTUS ruling when they cheered as Obama busted the public finance law for presidential elections into smithereens and pigged out on corporate PAC money from Goldman Sachs and other banksters. This is more Karma for Obama and the dems.

Flag It | Permalink 1:23 pm, Jan 21, 2010 reardongalt

This is a huge victory for free speech, and a stinging rebuke to McCain-Feingold, which happened to be one of the signature bills of McCain that drove him out of favor with conservatives. This means the "Hillary: The Movie" would have been shown. Wow, the good news just keeps on comin'.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 1:20 pm, Jan 21, 2010 Fang1944

Free speech that costs millions of dollars? This is a step toward plutocracy.

Flag It | Permalink 1:51 pm, Jan 21, 2010 byersl

You are wrong. I'm a small donor. I gave to Obama.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 1:36 pm, Jan 21, 2010 FarLeftFist

Corporations...The REAL Govt.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 10:55 am, Jan 21, 2010 Sajwert

@FLF And you think that this is something new? Of course you can't. Both Dems and Repubs have been bought, paid for, and filed under "S/he is mine" by any special interest that needs a vote on a bill. All the Browns voted in will never change that, and if Brown stays in office after 2012, I will bet you $$$ to donut holes that he, too, will have the same label "bought, paid for, and filed away.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 1:40 pm, Jan 21, 2010 AmericanPravda

"Politicians raise more and more money every year. Voters get more and more disillusioned. Something has to give." This says it all. Until the money is taken completely out of politics and political campaigning we can only look forward to more corporate shills in Washington. Sad, but true!

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 10:57 am, Jan 21, 2010 RightofCenter

Right, so you want to limit the only voices that people hear to the talking heads and so-called journalists in America's "big media" corporations? No thanks! Forgive me if I won't cede my right to free speech to make room for Tina Brown and Pinch Sulzberger's goons and minions. If you can't buy airtime and ad-space in this country, then your freedom to express your political opinion has been effectively mooted. Corporations, just like unions or Jesse Jackson and the Washington Post all have the SAME right to express their political opinions.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 2:08 pm, Jan 21, 2010 Dreamer4Ever

Problem is, any reform would have have to written, and voted on, by the very legislature who is now running scared from the mountain of money that Corporations may now spend freely. Expect to see a lot more fundraising and even less governing. Maybe public officials should wear sponsorship patches, like race car drivers.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:08 am, Jan 21, 2010 mcmchugh99

The only way to run the fat cats out of that town would be to have another Revolution again, like we did in 1776. Until then, we are going to have a government of, for and by the big corporations.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 11:12 am, Jan 21, 2010 jaydeekay

We are way too fat to have a successful revolution.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:34 am, Jan 21, 2010 Sajwert

We have ALWAYS had a goverment that is of, for and by the big corporations. They are just less concerned now that the general public knows about it.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 1:41 pm, Jan 21, 2010 timeisnow

This is a unfortunate occurrence for all Americans, we need to get away from Big Business influencing our elections to meet their needs and desires. We need Private sector Jobs and tax cuts for Small business where the Hell are those Mr. President. Now you are bashing the banks, which is fine, but not the MOST IMPORTANT THING for the Country. This topic should be the most important topic on TDB.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 11:16 am, Jan 21, 2010 Dreamer4Ever

The "jobs and tax cuts for small business" are in the Jobs bill Obama proposed that Congress currently can't deal with because they are deadlocked on Health Care. The banks, in fact all the biggest businesses, just BECAME the most important things in the country, now that they can openly spend all they want campaigning. Your democracy, bought and sold like stock.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:49 am, Jan 21, 2010 squareyellowpaper

The Supreme Court ruling just supports our capitalist system. There is nothing wrong with those with the most getting the most from our government. Capitalist does not stop at the doors of the House and Senate chambers. The US Chamber of Commerce has argued this point continuously. Finally, the SCOTUS agrees. Unlimited giving to election campaigns is not like a bribe. It is business, as usual, and there is nothing wrong with it. Campaign reform is wrong. Leave things the way they are. Our great and wonderful nation has made it this far. If you have the money, you have influence and a path to power. This gives the public more reason to be competitive to get ahead.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 11:18 am, Jan 21, 2010 Dreamer4Ever

Saying that corporations DESERVE an unfettered hand in our democracy is like saying that the schoolyard bully DESERVES the lunch money he's procured by being stronger and meaner then the other kids in his class.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 11:52 am, Jan 21, 2010 eat5vegetables

Well said.

Flag It | Permalink 12:40 pm, Jan 21, 2010 RightofCenter

But let me guess, you've got no problems with big labor walking hand-in-hand with Democrats, right? Pardon me if I'm unimpressed with an argument to limit the right of corporations to speak their minds when unions just got a ridiculously brazen campaign payback in the waiver they received for their Cadillac plans.

Flag It | Permalink 2:12 pm, Jan 21, 2010 bgeasyas123

This is absolutely terrible and it is beyond comprehension how the supreme court could rule the way they did. Glad you can see the upside Mckinnon, but what in the world makes you think Congress will reign this in???

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:19 am, Jan 21, 2010 squareyellowpaper

Small donations do not really make a difference. Let the corporations and special interests pay for our elections.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:19 am, Jan 21, 2010 FarLeftFist

Well with news like that it should be no time before the political prostitutes known as republicans throw their hat into the ring for a 2012 race.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:21 am, Jan 21, 2010 PoetLaureate

The decrying of the Supreme Court's decision still doesn't address the key issue -- money IS speech and is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Corporations are made up of voting citizens (presumably), and therefore are afforded the same aggregated First Amendment rights as their constitutients. That said, there are other ways through which political candidates can communicate with their prospective voters that don't require exorbitant sums of money, it just takes a lot more work. In any case, this was the proper decision by the Supreme Court.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 11:22 am, Jan 21, 2010 Dreamer4Ever

If money is speech, why not just write the name of your candidate of choice ON money and have that count as your vote? Number of votes equal to the number value of the money. It would be like a public service auction-house: the candidate who gets bid the highest gets the job. That would be REAL democracy, right?

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:55 am, Jan 21, 2010 KGBeast

Why don't we cut the middleman and just elect a corporation as president? A pepsi administration would be refreshing.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 11:30 am, Jan 21, 2010 Dreamer4Ever

But the coca-cola opposition would trample it's progressive agenda.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:56 am, Jan 21, 2010 VinnyB

The growth of the independent vote tells us BOTH parties are bought and sold by special interests. The advantage of the independent vote is that it holds no allegiance to a party. The same independent vote that voted Republican Scott Brown in must have the stomach to vote a non-performing Republican out in favor of a Democrat if that Democrat serves THE PEOPLE well. MA was a win for the independent voter; the Republicans benefited by default. This is a "teachable moment" for both the dems and reps.

Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:33 am, Jan 21, 2010 Read Full Article »