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]
Feingold, who believed that those with money and power should not “drown out the voices of average Americans,” was best known for legislation that banned large donations to candidates and political parties.
The Wisconsin Democrat was defeated in November in a midterm election that saw more than $400 million spent nationally by tax-exempt organizations collecting large checks, often from undisclosed donors.
Feingold’s departure is a source of cheer to conservative activists who saw his approach to regulating money as unwieldy and unconstitutional. And they applaud the recent freedom granted by the Supreme Court to corporate and union contributors — and they have their own agenda for further undoing Feingold’s legacy.
Feingold’s allies, while acknowledging they face a tough fight, say they have a three-part plan for 2011: Push legislation that would end the secret-money loophole by requiring groups to disclose their donors; seek aggressive enforcement of Internal Revenue Service rules governing political groups that operate as “social welfare organizations”; and fight lawsuits and legislative proposals that could further undermine regulatory gains made during Feingold’s years in the Senate. [Read more]
WASHINGTON – The 2010 census report coming out Tuesday will include a boatload of good political news for Republicans and grim data for Democrats hoping to re-elect President Barack Obama and rebound from last month’s devastating elections.
The population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states, a trend the Census Bureau will detail in its once-a-decade report to the president. Political clout shifts, too, because the nation must reapportion the 435 to make them roughly equal in population, based on the latest census figures.
The biggest gainer will be Texas, a GOP-dominated state expected to gain up to four new House seats, for a total of 36. The chief losers — New York and Ohio, each projected by nongovernment analysts to lose two seats — were carried by Obama in 2008 and are typical of states in the Northeast and Midwest that are declining in political influence.
Democrats’ problems don’t end there.
November’s elections put Republicans in control of dozens of and governorships, just as states prepare to redraw their congressional and legislative district maps. It’s often a brutally partisan process, and Republicans’ control in those states will enable them to create new districts to their liking. [Read more]
Pity the campaign finance reform activist. For years he’s fought to wring big money out of politics and shine a spotlight on who’s funding campaigns. But less than a decade after that shining moment for the campaign finance reform movement, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known as McCain-Feingold after its two chief Senate sponsors, John McCain and Russ Feingold), its successes are unraveling and its prospects look dimmer by the day.
The 2010 elections will likely see more than $300 million spent by conservative independent groups who disclose little or nothing about their donors. (Pro-Democratic unions will spend perhaps half that, though their funds come from rank-and-file members, not outside donors.) That comes on the heels of a January 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, which declared that corporations and unions are entitled to spend their money on direct electioneering — meaning to help or defeat candidates — as a function of their free speech. Campaign reformers say the Citizens United decision has effectively served as a green light for a new torrent of corporate cash that’s being funneled in the political system through intermediary groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which take advantage of legal loopholes to keep their donors anonymous. [Read more]
WASHINGTON - Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a rare, out-of-term rehearing of a case justices set aside from last term that could flip campaign finance law on its head.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will determine how much influence corporations can exert in political campaigns. If the justices ultimately decide to rule against precedent, says Rick Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School Los Angeles, it will “open up the floodgates of money in federal elections.” No surprise, then, that the business community, labor unions, numerous advocacy groups, 26 states and the District of Columbia, several congressmen and two U.S. senators have all weighed in.
Corporations and labor unions are allowed to contribute to political action committees, but for more than a century, Uncle Sam has curbed their direct spending to influence elections. In 2002, Congress passed the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, banning certain corporately funded broadcasts just before an election and requiring disclosure of most corporate funding for ads. In a decision the next year, the court bolstered the law and upheld a 1990 decision limiting corporate influence.
But the justices may be about to change course, due to the debate surrounding the 2008 documentary film Hillary: the Movie, an unflattering portrayal of Hillary Clinton, then a presidential candidate.
In simplified terms, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced the movie and wanted to offer it as a video on demand, in addition to its appearances in theaters. It also wanted to run ads promoting the film. A federal district court determined that federal regulators couldn’t ban the ads (as long as they adhered to disclosure requirements), but they could ban the film. If that’s the case, argued Citizens United, it’s an intrusion on the right to free speech.
The case has created an unlikely group of allies and adversaries. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the business community’s lobby in Washington, says the law’s disclosure requirements have a “suppressive effect” on First Amendment expression. The AFL-CIO argues that the court’s previous decisions on the matter have created an “unworkable censorship regime” that can be remedied only by reversing parts of the 2003 decision.
Others, like the American Independent Business Alliance, argue that business and individuals are inherently different and that corporations don’t enjoy the same interpretation of free expression under the First Amendment that people do.
Since the court rarely hears a case unless it wants to clarify a confusing aspect of law or overturn a previous decision, the John Roberts court may be poised to overturn several aspects of its 2003 decision and perhaps the 1990 decision as well, some analysts have argued.
If that happens, the justices would be making a legal statement at an awkward time politically. For the past year, lawmakers have excoriated regulators for allowing companies like Citigroup, American International Group and Bank of America for getting too big to fail. Handing companies more power to influence the political process would be unpopular, to say the least.
Corporations already play a prominent role in campaign funding. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft and Citigroup were among the top donors to Democrat Barack Obama’s successful bid for the presidency last year. Republican candidate John McCain’s top three contributors were Merrill Lynch (now owned by Bank of America), Citi and Morgan Stanley.
If after hearing Citizens United v. FEC, the court reverses previous decisions, Hasen predicts it’s unlikely that businesses will directly support one candidate or another.
“That could be bad for the corporate image,” he says. Instead, contributions will likely get funneled through organizations like the U.S. Chamber, which can direct it to any number of purposes. But it’s also likely that parties and candidates will hit up companies for political donations more frequently.
“The question is more about extortion than bribery,” jokes Hasen.