This week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will, as I previously wrote, likely determine the constitutional bounds of public campaign financing programs across the country. In that case, McComish v. Bennett, the Court will rule on whether it is legal to provide publicly financed candidates with additional public funds when they are faced with heavy spending by privately financed opponents or independent expenditure groups.
Those arguing that the law is unconstitutional claim that Arizona’s public financing law impermissibly limits the speech (in this case spending equals speech) of privately financed candidates and independent third party spenders because those individuals or groups know that their act of spending money will trigger a public financed candidates ability to get more money. Put another way, petitioners claim that if privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups know that if they spend money, a publicly financed candidate will get more public funds, then they may chose not to spend that money at all.
First, there’s dubious evidence that privately financed candidates and independent expenditures groups have in fact opted not to spend money under Arizona’s public financing law. Even if political actors think twice before spending money, that does not mean that their speech is severely burdened. Second, petitioners seem to suggest that Arizona enact a less efficient public campaign financing system. Among other reasons, Arizona created a public financing system with a so-called “trigger” provision because it allows publicly funded candidates to have enough money to remain competitive, while preserving public funds by not wasting money on candidates who do not need additional public funds. This, for instance, is preferable to a public financing program which just provides candidates with a huge lump sum grant, whether they need the money or not. [Read more]
An Ohio House panel approved a measure Tuesday curbing collective-bargaining rights for 350,000 state public workers, softening several measures that some Republicans opposed while strengthening other restrictions.
The most controversial amendment would enable public workers to opt out of paying union dues. Currently, workers who don’t want to join a public-employee union can pay a lower dues rate. Public unions would also have to obtain consent from members in order to use dues for political purposes.
A third measure would enable local voters to veto a labor contract that results in a taxpayer-funded spending increase. The bill moves to the full House for a vote Wednesday and the Senate later this week. Republicans hold majorities in both chambers.
Mike Dittoe, spokesman for Republican House Speaker William Batchelder, said the bill “is about being fiscally responsible,” and that lawmakers sought input from public unions on the amendments. “This isn’t about busting unions.” [Read more]
First, we encourage you to watch this short video that lays out our new strategy.
Corporations have a lock on Washington, so for now we’ll go to the states instead. State legislatures have a central role to play in passing a Constitutional Amendment. And our state legislators are much closer to us, and more likely to hear our concerns and act on them, than most of the elected officials in Washington. [Read more]
When the current economic crisis hit, the Obama campaign blew away Bush and McCain by promising hope, change and a solution that would overcome this crisis and prevent future crises. Likewise, some governments in Europe came to power based on public fear reacting to the global meltdown. Ongoing crisis, mass economic pain and deepening public anger keep shifting political winds.
Within six months of Barrack Obama’s election, those winds had changed again. His liberal campaign rhetoric had hit a wall. What humbled Obama was the determination of business interests to shift onto others the costs of the crisis and of the government’s response, namely its hugely expensive bailout of major corporations especially in finance. We watched and learned who was really in charge of how this economic crisis would be “managed”.
There would not be a 2011 rise in the federal income tax rate from 35 to 39% for the richest Americans (even though it had been 91% in the 1960s). There would be no legal or other requirement that corporate beneficiaries use their bailout billions in economically and socially useful ways (rather than only for their private profits). There would be no federal employment programme, no matter how high the US unemployment rate went, nor how long workers remained unemployed. There would be no real programme to lift wages or otherwise offset millions of homeowners’ inability to make mortgage payments even if that omission meant that the housing market would tank again – the double dip downward in that crucial industry is now under way. [Read more]
Last week, the New York Times ran an explosive front-page story revealing how General Electric (GE), despite making over $14 billion in profits in 2010, paid absolutely nothing in federal corporate income taxes. It even received a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
ThinkProgress provided substantial coverage of the story, offering further analysis and insight into the firm’s behavior:
– Despite Paying No Income Taxes, GE CEO Lauded His Company’s Patriotism In 2009 West Point Speech [3/25/11]
– Sen. Johnson’s Reaction To General Electric Paying No Taxes: Cut The Corporate Tax Rate [3/25/11]
– After Paying Zero Income Taxes, GE Plans To Ask Its Union Workers To Make Wage And Benefits Concessions [3/28/11]
Reviewing the television coverage of GE’s tax avoidance, ThinkProgress found that the story was covered 23 times by Fox News between March 25 and March 28. Certainly, with an anti-Obama axe to grind, it is not surprising that the network chose to excoriate a company that is considered close to the Obama administration and whose CEO is the head of an outside White House jobs panel.
Yet, as FAIR’s Peter Hart points out, this blockbuster story received scant coverage on another major cable news outlet: MSNBC. A review of MSNBC coverage finds that, over the same three-day period, the General Electric story received relatively little mention. It was only mentioned three times on MSNBC — one of these mentions was by host Rachel Maddow during a conversation with the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson and another mention was made by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a guest on the network. [Read more]
The uprisings in the Middle East, the unrest that is tearing apart nations such as the Ivory Coast, the bubbling discontent in Greece, Ireland and Britain and the labor disputes in states such as Wisconsin and Ohio presage the collapse of globalization. They presage a world where vital resources, including food and water, jobs and security, are becoming scarcer and harder to obtain. They presage growing misery for hundreds of millions of people who find themselves trapped in failed states, suffering escalating violence and crippling poverty. They presage increasingly draconian controls and force—take a look at what is being done to Pfc. Bradley Manning—used to protect the corporate elite who are orchestrating our demise.
We must embrace, and embrace rapidly, a radical new ethic of simplicity and rigorous protection of our ecosystem—especially the climate—or we will all be holding on to life by our fingertips. We must rebuild radical socialist movements that demand that the resources of the state and the nation provide for the welfare of all citizens and the heavy hand of state power be employed to prohibit the plunder by the corporate power elite. We must view the corporate capitalists who have seized control of our money, our food, our energy, our education, our press, our health care system and our governance as mortal enemies to be vanquished. [Read more]
The right-wing libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch have been the subject of enormous controversy recently. Liberals have fiercely attacked them, and conservative and libertarians have defended them with equal passion. Now we have Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard joining in with an 8,000 word cover story. Continetti is the author of “The Persecution Of Sarah Palin,” and in this piece he reprises his role as ghost author for a popular conservative victim-hero. Because the piece so faithful transmits the Kochs’ own views – in no way does it substantively differ from the story the Kochs themselves would write – it’s a fascination transmission of their self-conception.
Unsurprisingly, the Kochs view themselves as brilliant, public-spirited entrepreneurs who have suddenly become victims of a vicious smear campaign. The Kochs have been active in influencing public policy for many years, and they managed until very recently to escape any scrutiny whatsoever, a state of affairs they clearly view as normal and fair.
The premise of Continetti’s article is that liberal critics of the Kochs are “conspiratorial.” (“whenever you turned on MSNBC or clicked on the Huffington Post, you’d see the Kochs described in terms more applicable to Lex Luthor and General Zod.”) It’s certainly true, as Ezra Klein has noted, that that many liberals overstate the Kochs’ influence. They are an important piece in the conservative movement, but just one piece among many. Scott Walker may have received $43,000 from the Kochs, but the Kochs are bit players in the Wisconsin drama, which is primarily the story of a Republican governor trying to advance his party’s interests, not responding to the Kochs’ money. But the Kochs are powerful figures on the right, and Continetti attempts to sweep up all criticism of their influence as rabid conspiracy-mongering. Over and over Continetti dismisses not just the most heated attacks on the Kochs but any critical reporting on the Kochs as liberal paranoia. [Read more]
The Weekly Standard’s Matt Continetti, a writer who gained fame defending Sarah Palin from public scrutiny, has a new article blasting critics of Koch Industries and its billionaire owners, David and Charles Koch. Continetti traveled to Koch’s headquarters in Wichita, gained unprecedented access to the brothers, as well as their top executives, and came away with nothing but praise for the company and its peerless role in financing right-wing front groups.
In over 8,000 words of hagiography, Continetti did not find space to disclose that his fellow opinion editor at the Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb, is currently employed by Koch Industries to help improve the company’s political image. Or that the Weekly Standard’s reporters routinely attend Koch’s secret political strategy and fundraising meetings. Or that Continetti had received a fellowship funded by the Phillips Foundation, a nonprofit heavily reliant on Koch funds. Or that the Weekly Standard is owned by billionaire Phil Anschutz, a friend of the Koch brothers and an attendee of Koch donor events.
The article includes a deceptive claim that the Koch brothers do not lobby or fund groups to financially benefit Koch Industries. The evidence would suggest otherwise: [Read more]
The U.S. Supreme Court will today hear the first challenge since the 1970s to laws regarding public financing systems for political campaigns. OpenSecrets Blog will be at the Court’s chambers covering the oral argument, but for now, here’s a synopsis of the case at hand:
The Case: McComish v. Bennett
The Issue: Arizona’s public financing system is set up to award an initial grant to participating candidates. Then, over the course of the election, additional funds — up to two times the initial amount — can be doled out to participating candidates. These so-called matching funds are allocated when certain spending thresholds are crossed by either privately funded candidates in the race or outside special interest groups that make independent expenditures in opposition to a publicly funded candidate (or in support of his or her opponent). In this legal challenge, the constitutionality of these triggers is being called into question.
The Supremes: Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has leaned toward deregulation when it comes to campaign finance issues. A 5-4 majority, led by Roberts, created a political firestorm in January last year when it overturned prohibitions on corporate money funding political advertisements in its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. In 2008, a 5-4 majority of the court also rejected a campaign finance regulation known as the “Millionaires’ Amendment” in Davis v. Federal Election Commission. [Read more]
Video and photos from US Uncut’s 40 nationwide protests are beginning to come in. Perhaps the liveliest chapter is US Uncut DC whose 100+ members shut down a Bank of America branch on Saturday. Reportedly, the bank managers pulled a [1] as action began at the protest. This is not the first time the franchise has successfully shut down BoA’s operations.
Other states decided to target different corporate tax dodgers. In 2009 and 2010, Verizon reported $24.2 billion in pretax income, but the company hasn’t paid a penny in taxes on that revenue, so in Ohio members of the “Citizens’ Revenue Service” went to a local Verizon store in order to collect the taxes on behalf of the American people.
[Read more]
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called for closing corporate tax loopholes and eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas companies Sunday after reports that General Electric and other giant corporations pay nothing or almost nothing in federal income taxes.
According to The New York Times, General Electric made $14.2 billion in profit last year, $5.1 billion of which was made in the United States. The corporation received $3.2 billion in tax benefits, but did not pay any money in taxes.
“We have a deficit problem,” said Sanders. “It has to be addressed, but it cannot be addressed on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the poor, young people, the most vulnerable in this country. The wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country have got to contribute. We’ve got to talk about shared sacrifice.”
Oil giant Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009, but paid no federal income taxes, according to the senator. Instead, the corporation received a $156 million rebate from the IRS.
Sanders has introduced legislation that would establish a surtax on millionaires and strip tax deductions for oil companies — a proposal he claims would cut the deficit by about $50 billion. [Read more]
In lengthy interviews with a conservative magazine, the billionaire Koch brothers mounted an aggressive defense of their business and political interests, describing their liberal critics as “very, very extreme” and “very dangerous” and President Barack Obama as a “radical” with “Marxist” ideas whose success is owed largely to his “silver tongue.”
Obama is “the most radical president we’ve ever had as a nation … and has done more damage to the free enterprise system and long-term prosperity than any president we’ve ever had,” David Koch is quoted saying in a story posted late Friday on the website of the Weekly Standard.
In a grudging reference to Obama’s rhetorical skills, he added: “It just shows you what a person with a silver tongue can achieve.”
David’s brother Charles Koch said of Obama: “I’m not saying he’s a Marxist, but he’s internalized some Marxist models — that is, that business tends to be successful by exploiting its customers and workers.”
The Weekly Standard story comes after months of intensifying scrutiny of the Kochs’ funding of conservative causes, including the fights to limit carbon emissions and block last year’s Democratic healthcare overhaul, as well as this year’s showdown with public employee unions in Wisconsin. [Read more]
So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home.
Welcome to America in the second decade of the 21st century. An army of long-term unemployed workers is spread across the land, the human fallout from the Great Recession and long years of misguided economic policies. Optimism is in short supply. The few jobs now being created too often pay a pittance, not nearly enough to pry open the doors to a middle-class standard of living.
Arthur Miller, echoing the poet Archibald MacLeish, liked to say that the essence of America was its promises. That was a long time ago. Limitless greed, unrestrained corporate power and a ferocious addiction to foreign oil have led us to an era of perpetual war and economic decline. Young people today are staring at a future in which they will be less well off than their elders, a reversal of fortune that should send a shudder through everyone.
The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities. When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely. [Read more]
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Gov Hurts | ||||
|
||||
In the first big campaign finance case since the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion last year in Citizens United v. FEC, the Court will hear arguments on Monday in McComish v. Bennett. McComish is a critical test for the Roberts Court. Will it tolerate, or will it kill off, Arizona’s public financing law, put in place to control corporate and special interest influence over the electoral process? Public financing is one of the last, best protections against corruption available in the wake of Citizens United.
In Citizens United, a bitterly-divided Supreme Court gutted key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, ruling by a 5-4 vote that corporations have a right to spend unlimited sums in candidate elections, effectively allowing corporations to drown out the voices of individual Americans. The majority in Citizens United sharply departed from our Constitution’s text and history. Corporations are never mentioned in the Constitution, they cannot vote in elections, stand for election, or serve as elected officials, but the Court in Citizens United ruled they can overwhelm the political process using profits generated by the special privileges — such as perpetual life and limited liability — granted to corporations alone.
The McComish case could be the next shoe to drop, or, perhaps, a turning point by the Court back toward fair elections and the Constitution. The Court will consider the constitutionality of Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, a thoughtful effort to deter both the appearance and the reality of campaign corruption by providing matching funds to participating candidates to ensure they can run a competitive race, even against a privately-financed candidate with huge reserves or a candidate with the support of corporate special interests. In a brief representing constitutional law scholars Bruce Ackerman of Yale, Lawrence Lessig of Harvard, Fordham’s Zephyr Teachout and UCLA’s Adam Winkler, my organization, Constitutional Accountability Center, argues that the Court should uphold Arizona’s law — not least because the Framers were obsessed with the possibility of our elected officials being corrupted by special interests. The Framers did all they could to make sure public servants in fact represent “We the People.” [Read more]
In 1983 NY hotel-chain-owning billionaire Leona Helmsley said, “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes…” As our country migrates from democracy to plutocracy, this more and more appears to be official policy. Again and again we see tax cuts for the wealthy few, tax breaks and subsidies for the big corporations that operate as fronts for those wealthy few, and budget cuts for the things We, the People (government) do to empower and protect each other. Just a few weeks ago we watched as an extension of the Bush tax cuts and a huge cut in the estate tax rate was pushed through. Now we watch as the discussion turns to cuts in Social Security and the rest of the so-called “safety net.”
Another indicator of plutocracy (government of, by and for the wealthy) is impunity for those at the top. Leona Helmsley actually went to jail for tax evasion. Even as recently as the early-90s Savings and Loan Crisis our government investigated, prosecuted and jailed more than a thousand bad actors for fraud and other crimes. This time, well… not so much. Well … actually not at all. Times have changed. Don’t look back. Deal with it. Suck it up. Let’s all get on the same team and keep this ball moving forward down the field at the end of the day. Whatever. Hey, look over there!
Today’s Plutocracy Indicator
From the New York Times, “G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether“:
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
So not only did GE, the highly-profitable recipient of federal contracts and bailout money, not pay taxes, we paid them $3.2 billion! [Read more]
While Ohio public employees’ rights to bargain collectively are under siege, the Ohio Republican Party executed a perfect sleight of hand by disenfranchising nearly 900,000 Ohio voters. In the most vicious and direct attack on voting rights since Bull Connor ran amok in the deep South, Ohio House Republicans passed HB 159 that requires Ohio voters to produce one of four state photo IDs at the polls.
The only IDs that will be accepted in Ohio if this bill passes the overwhelming Republican State Senate are a U.S. passport, a U.S. military ID, an Ohio driver’s license, or an Ohio state ID. This is the most restrictive standard in the nation.
The Republican Party’s target is obvious. Studies indicate that 25% of African Americans nationwide do not have a government-issued photo ID, 18% of voters over age 65 do not have a photo ID, and 15% of voters with incomes under $35,000 lack the ID as well. Besides going after blacks, the elderly and the poor, the bill also sets its sights on college students. What do these people have in common? They tend to vote Democratic.
The Republicans refuse to discuss an amendment that would have accepted a college student ID with a photo from their own state-funded university, including The Ohio State University, one of the nation’s largest institutions of higher education. [Read more]
by Alex Pareene | Salon
Ginni Thomas, longtime conservative activist and wife of silent Supreme Court Justice (and “national treasure”) Clarence Thomas, has a new job! She is… a journalist now, apparently.
She has been hired by Tucker Carlson’s “The Daily Caller,” a web magazine that seeks to answer the question, “will people read literally any bullshit at all if we call it ‘conservative’ and occasionally throw in some sexism and homophobia?” Thomas will be a “special correspondent” for the Caller, which means she will “interview key political and community leaders — from high-profile politicians to grassroots activists — with a focus on listening to those outside the Beltway.”
Thomas could use the work, I guess. Her Tea Party group asked her to take a backseat due to the constant negative publicity and scrutiny her presence and activities invited. (Like, for example, the fact that she was actively working to fight a law that her husband will probably eventually have to rule on, as a member of the Supreme Court. And also her husband just lied about her income on his financial disclosure forms, every year, because there was never any chance of any negative consequences for his actions, which is something of a pattern in his professional career.) So she quit and started a lobbying firm that didn’t do anything. As long as Thomas is kept busy she may be less likely to call people her husband sexually harassed years ago and ask for apologies. [Read more]
The small companies and public didn’t have a chance in the early rounds. Now it’s down to a few formidable corporate teams, the Cheat 16:
- General Electric made $10.3 billion in 2009, but received a $1.1 billion tax rebate.
- Forbes said about Bank of America in 2010: “How did they not pay any taxes on $4.4 billion in income?”
- Oil giant Exxon made a $45 billion profit in 2009, but paid no taxes in the United States.
- Citigroup had 4 quarters of billion-dollar profits in 2010, but paid no taxes.
- Wells Fargo made $12 billion but purchased Wachovia Bank to claim a $19 billion tax credit.
- Hewlett Packard’s U.S. income tax rate was 4.3% in 2008 and 2.3% in 2009.
- Verizon’s 10.5% tax rate, according to Forbes, is due to its partnership with Vodafone, the primary target in UK Uncut’s protests against tax evaders.
- Chevron’s tax rate was 1% in 2008.
- Boeing, which just won a $30 billion contract to build 179 airborne tankers, got $124 million back from the taxpayers in 2010.
- Over the past 5 years Amazon made $3.5 billion and paid taxes at the rate of 4.3%.
- Carnival Cruise Lines paid 1% in taxes on its $11.5 billion profit over the past 5 years.
- Koch Industries is not publicly traded, so their antics are kept private. But they benefit from taxpayer subsidies in ranching and logging. [Read more]
After watching the sudden and impressively well-organized wave of legislation being introduced into state legislatures that all seem to be pursuing parallel goals only tangentially related to current fiscal challenges–ending collective bargaining rights for public employees, requiring photo IDs at the ballot box, rolling back environmental protections, privileging property rights over civil rights, and so on–I’ve found myself wondering where all of this legislation is coming from.
The prank phone call that Governor Scott Walker unhesitatingly accepted from a blogger purporting to be billionaire conservative donor David Koch has received lots of airplay, and it certainly demonstrates that the governor is accustomed to having conversations with deep-pocketed folks who support his cause. If you’ve not actually seen the transcript, it’s worth a careful reading, and is accessible here:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/article_531276b6-3f6a-11e0-b288-001cc4c002e0.html
But even though I’m more than prepared to believe that David and Charles Koch have provided large amounts of money to help fund the conservative flood tide that is sweeping through state legislatures right now, I just don’t find it plausible that two brothers from Wichita, Kansas, no matter how wealthy, can be responsible for this explosion of radical conservative legislation. It also goes without saying that Scott Walker cannot be single-handedly responsible for what we’re seeing either; I wouldn’t believe that even for Wisconsin, let alone for so many other states. The governor clearly welcomes the national media attention he’s receiving as a spear-carrier for the movement. But he’s surely not the architect of that movement.
So…who is? [Read more]