Bernie Sanders: Supreme Court is paving the way to an oligarchic society

By David Ferguson/Raw Story

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday to abolish overall federal campaign spending limits, meaning that wealthy individuals now have carte blanche to spend as much as they like to affect the outcomes of federal elections.

“Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government,” said Sanders in a statement.

Wednesday’s 5-to-4 Court vote struck down limits on total amounts that individual donors can contribute to parties, candidates and political action committees within a two-year federal election cycle.

Sanders warned that this will give billionaires like brothers Charles and David Koch unfettered access to the airwaves for campaign ad buys and to candidates themselves.

“What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in?” Sanders said. “To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with ‘freedom of speech’ is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process.”

Wednesday’s ruling, he said, echoes the “disastrous” 2012 Citizens United verdict, which led to an unprecedented $7 billion in political spending for the 2012 election.

The current cap on spending per individual is a limit of $123,200 per cycle. That includes a separate $48,600 on individual donations to particular candidates.

To remove these spending limits, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the dissenting opinion on Wednesday, “eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws.”

Sanders has proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would overturn Citizens Unitedand make the type of pay-for-play Congressional culture it engenders a thing of the past. His website said that the Senator hopes to assure Americans that “the right to vote and the ability to make campaign contributions and expenditures belong only to real people.”

After Cuccinelli Loss, Conservatives Suddenly Realize Campaign Spending Is a Problem

BY JOSH ISRAEL/Think Progress

Tuesday, as he conceded defeat in the Virginia governor’s race, Ken Cuccinelli II (R) told supporters that he had come closer than polls had indicated “despite being outspent by an unprecedented $15 million.” But while he and his conservative supporters now lament that money cost them the victory they felt they deserved, they have long been the defenders of the system of campaign finance non-regulation in Virginia and nationally.

Conservative groups like the Center for Competitive Politics have long argued that “money doesn’t buy elections.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), whose own political action committee gave $5,000 to Cuccinelli’s campaign, has for years advocated for an end to limits on campaign contributions, believing “money is speech.” While the 2010 Citizens United ruling weakened federal contribution limits, Virginia has long been one of a handful of stateswith no limits whatsoever. The only restriction Cuccinelli supported over his time in the state senate was on contributions from foreign nationals.

Because of the Old Dominion’s anything goes system, candidates can accept millions of dollars from any individual or corporation seeking to ensure their victory. While Governor-Elect Terry McAuliffe raised over $32 million, Cuccinelli himself reported at least $19 million in donations — including hundreds of thousands from fossil fuel companies who preferred a climate-change denier to a candidate focused on green energy.

Leading up to the election, the Cuccinelli campaign repeatedly highlighted the money gap, attacking McAuliffe for as being “bought and paid for,” “exclusively driven by big money,” and “willing to sell his out Virginia families to the highest bidder.” When McAuliffe embraced campaign finance reform in an April interview, agreeing that “there’s just way too much money in politics,” Cuccinelli’s campaign pooh-poohed the idea as “hypocrisy.” “McAuliffe complaining about money in politics is the equivalent of Bobby Knight criticizing cursing among college basketball coaches,” they answered.

In campaign post-mortems, conservatives from Linda Chavez to Ralph Reedboth echoed the candidate’s concession and blamed Cuccinelli’s loss on money. Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, lamented that the pro-corporate U.S. Chamber of Commerce went from making seven-figure investments in the 2009 campaign for Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) but spent nothing on Cuccinelli. “Just think what would have happened if the business and donor classes of the Republican Party would have helped.” Ben Domenech blamed the “donor class” as “sore losers” who threw a “temper tantrum” by not opening up their wallets for a more conservative nominee.

As Zack Beauchamp noted Thursday, Cuccinelli got “killed in the fundraising race,” in large part because business leaders did not care for his anti-corporatist stances against a tax increase to increase transportation funding and corporate welfare. Cuccinelli embraced anti-government populist ideas — as well associally conservative ones — but not the priorities of some business interests. Had Cuccinelli embraced their agenda, as McDonnell did in 2009, others in the business community might well have supported him as enthusiastically as the energy sector did.

In an October press release called “Big Money,” the Cuccinelli campaign highlighted a fundraising appeal, sent by the chairman of the University of Virginia Council of Foundations to a hedge fund manager, explaining that he hoped to enlist a large number of UVA alums to support McAuliffe. “The more influential names we have associated with our shared voice the more likely we are going to have the future Governor’s ear,” he wrote.

Therein lies the problem. If money really is the determining factor in who wins elections, candidates who agree with powerful moneyed interests like the Chamber will always have the upper hand over those who do not. And as Virginia saw with McDonnell’s Star Scientific scandal, those wealthy benefactors will be the ones with the freest access to the politicians they bankroll. And if states are the laboratories of democracy, as the late Justice Louis Brandeissuggested, the experiment of unlimited money in Virginia might be a warning sign to conservatives nationally that “anything goes” campaign finance laws may not always work out in their favor.

Secret Koch Fund Decries ‘Corporate Welfare’ And Stimulus But Funds Their Top Defender

BY JOSH ISRAEL/Think Progress

The Koch brothers and their political allies quietly funneled $250 million to conservative causes last year through a secret tax-exempt organization called Freedom Partners, Politico reportedWednesday. But while the group’s website claims its top priorities including fighting runaway stimulus spending and “corporate welfare,” its donations included a $2 million gift to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, perhaps the strongest backer of such efforts.

The Freedom Partners website identifies four key political issues on which the group is focused — energy deregulation, Obamacare repeal/replacement, an end to “runaway government spending” and “temporary ‘stimulus’ programs,” and the elimination of “cronyism” and “corporate welfare.” It explicitly identifies industry bailouts, subsidies, and government loans as examples of the cronyism that “undermines the competition that is the heart of economic freedom.”

These positions seem at odds with the group’s multi-million dollar support for the the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has consistently supported federal spending in support of America’s business community. In recent years, it has backed:

1. The Export-Import Bank: The federal government’s official credit agency finances and insures foreign purchases of American goods for customers unable or unwilling to accept credit risk. Noting that much of the agency’s works aids Fortune 500 companies, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) once described it as “corporate welfare at its worst.” But the Chamber strongly supports the Export-Import Bank, calling it “especially important to small- and medium-sized businesses.”

2. The financial sector bailout: The 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, offered up to $700 billion to bail out the nation’s banking industry after the subprime lending crisis caused its meltdown. The Chamber “strongly supported the creation of TARP.”

3. The auto industry bailout : Rejecting Mitt Romney’s call to “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” the Obama administration stepped in in 2009 with a bailout for the American automobile manufacturers— and helped save the industry. The Chamber lobbied heavily for the bill.

4. The airline industry bailout: In 2001, after the 9/11 hijackings, President Bush moved quickly to bail out the struggling airline industry. In an October op-ed, the Chamber’s president noted that the move was well worth the cost. “Without the timely action from President Bush and Congress, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fully supported,” he wrote, “our airline industry–the envy of the world–would not have survived.”

5. Ethanol subsidies: In a 2003 letter to President Bush, the Chamber enthusiastically backed a bill that would “boost job-creating highway capital investment spending while promoting the production and use of ethanol.” The
bill, which did not make it out of committee, aimed to assist ethanol producers by establishing a tax credit for ethanol production.

While Freedom Partners dismisses the value of economic stimulus, the Chamber strongly pushed for and helped craft the 2009 American Recovery and Investment stimulus law.

Freedom Partners did not respond to a ThinkProgress inquiry about its spending.

According to the Politico report, the group — run mainly by longtime Koch Brothers operatives — operates a tax-exempt 501(c)(6) trade association, meaning that it need not disclose its donors. While claiming that his funders “are proud to be part” of the effort, Freedom Partners president Marc Short refused to identify any of the those donors.

Marco Rubio’s PAC Spends Five Times More On Overhead Than Political Contributions

By Josh Israel/Think Progress

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s leadership PAC, the Reclaim America PAC, boldly lists its motto as “electing conservatives to the United States Senate.” But despite raising more than $1.6 million in the 2012 cycle, less than five percent of that money went to other political candidates.

Rubio, elected to the Senate in 2010, registered his leadership PAC in August 2011. In a video announcing the committee, Rubio told supporters the it aimed to “help and assist like-minded candidates who want to come here and serve in the House, in the Senate, or maybe even in the White House to make a difference for America’s future.”

While his official Senate website biography boasts that he is “proud to represent Florida in the U.S. Senate where I’m working to fulfill my promise to restore fiscal discipline,” Rubio’s leadership PAC spending hardly seems disciplined. Out of $1,688,086 in receipts, Reclaim America reported spending over $370,000 on political consultants, more than $256,000 on fundraising expenses, and upwards of $450,000 on administrative overhead, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

That did not leave much for the PAC’s alleged purpose of electing more conservative Republicans: less than $78,000. This total just under $2,400 in independent expenditures, $15,000 sent to his party’s Senate campaign committee, money earmarked raised specifically for and transferred directly to other campaigns, and just five $2,500 donations to Senate candidates. While Senate Republicans had been expected to make gains in the 2012 elections, they ultimately lost two seats.

Watch Rubio’s solicit contributions for his leadership PAC:

(The National Journal has more here.)

Michigan Democrats are taking 1st shot at corporate funding with proposed ethics, campaign finance reform

By Rob South/MLive

LANSING - State House Democrats want lawmakers and state officers to be more accountable and open about where they get personal and campaign donations. The package of bills and a resolution to amend the state constitution are aimed primarily at money from corporations.

Democrats say a flood of untraceable money has created a “pay to play” environment at the Capitol. Michigan is one of only three states that don’t require elected or appointed officials to report personal donations not related to campaign contributions.

House minority leader Rick Hammel, D- Mt. Morris Township, says personal contributions should be as transparent as campaign contributions.

“There should be more disclosure on that money and sunshine on those, too. There is a big difference between contributions aimed at campaigns that we have to report, and the very large personal donations from corporations that may have influence on a lawmaker, never get reported.”

The ballot proposal would amend the state constitution to say that citizens have a right to know where lawmakers are getting their money.

Among other proposals, the package also:

• Includes a “cooling off period” that would prevent lawmakers from taking a job as a state lobbyist for two years after they leave office.

•Prohibits state elected officials from getting state grants, or soliciting campaign contributions while in a state facility.

• Toughens campaign finance disclosure and corporate accountability after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on corporate spending in campaigns

• Prevents state contractors, companies that accept federal bail-out money, and foreign-controlled corporations from spending money in Michigan elections.

• Requires corporations to publically disclose funders.

• Bans the state from awarding any contract over $100,000 to anyone who made campaign contributions to elected officials.

• Requires "robo-calls" to clearly state the name and address of the sponsor.

Ari Adler, press secretary for Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, says they just received the bills this morning.

“Saying you support better campaign finance and ethics laws is like saying you are for the sun coming up tomorrow,” Adler says. “It’s difficult to argue with the concept, but the devil is in the details.”

Adler says Republicans have concerns that labor unions have been left out of the package. And he voiced concern that Republicans were not consulted when crafting it.

"Bills that are introduced with purely political intentions may have some good parts to them," he says, "but it will take time to dig in and find what those might be.and will continue reviewing the bills."

Scott Walker accused of violating over 1,000 campaign finance laws

By Andrew Jones/Raw Story

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) may have to deal with another controversy, this time over failing to disclose who contributed to him financially.

According to a report from the progressive campaign group One Wisconsin Now, Walker violated the state’s campaign finance laws 1,115 times since 2009.

Wisconsin law requires that a candidate disclose contributions which exceed $100 — something that Scott Ross, director of One Wisconsin Now, says he repeatedly declined to do.

“Scott Walker has improperly reported well over $500,000 in contributions from inside and outside of Wisconsin,” Ross said. “Scott Walker has absolutely no interest in following the campaign finance rules of the state of Wisconsin and we again call for state regulators to address his serial violation of our laws.”

The allegations are just the latest in a string of recent scandals for Walker, who found himself making national headlines in 2011 for stripping collective bargaining rights from public sector unions. Just last week, one of his former aides was charged with enticing a child to sexual activity, and a broader investigation into embezzlement was still ongoing.

Walker is currently facing a possible recall election later this year, if his opponents can collect enough petition signatures by January 17th.

Aides to Gov. Walker did not respond to a request for comment at time of this story’s publication.

Secretive Right-Wing Plutocrats Use Front Groups To Attack New Campaign Finance Disclosure Bill

By Lee Fang On Thursday, Senate Democrats, along with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), unveiled sweeping campaign

finance reform aimed at curbing campaign abuses in the wake of the conservative Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, which struck down decades of campaign finance law. The main focus of the DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) is to increase disclosure requirements on corporations, labor unions, trade associations, and nonprofit advocacy groups that spend money on ads to influence federal elections. The DISCLOSE Act forces the CEO of a corporation or head of an advocacy group to personally appear in the organization’s ads and take responsibility, and for the top funder of the ad to appear in the ad and take responsibility.

The status quo of electioneering allows corporate powers, billionaires, and even domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations to essentially manipulate American elections without ever revealing themselves. The DISCLOSE Act is a tremendous start at addressing this crisis of open democracy. But predictably, secretive right-wing power brokers are pushing back. As soon as Van Hollen’s bill was introduced, front groups funded by the most elusive conservative elite fired back, swiftly criticizing the new transparency requirements as a so-called threat to their First Amendment rights:

– U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The DISCLOSE Act “stifles free speech.” Chamber President Tom Donohue quickly issued a statement condemning the bill as an attempt to “silence constitutionally protected speech and abridge First Amendment rights.” Donohue may feel threatened because the DISCLOSE Act undermines the very purpose of the Chamber: to attack progressive reforms while concealing the corporate money behind those attacks. For instance, the Chamber is running millions of dollars of ads against Wall Street reform, but the ads only say they are paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In fact, some of the nation’s largest financial conglomerates, including banks bailed out by taxpayers like CitiGroup, are funding the Chamber and in doing so, are underwriting these ads. Last year, the Chamber ran nearly $100 million dollars in advertising against health reform, dwarfing any other group for or against the bills in Congress. However, the Chamber never revealed that health insurance companies were secretly paying for much of those ads.

– Howie Rich’s Front Group: The DISCLOSE Act is “disclosure overkill.” The Center for Competitive Politics, one of real estate tycoon Howie Rich’s many anti-government front groups, quickly slammed the bill and absurdly argued that the “stand by your ad” mandate “provid[es] no informational benefit and reduc[es] the amount of available political speech” in an ad. This laughable claim that more disclosure gives less information is a cynical cover to help Rich stay behind closed doors as he operates a massive political machine from the perch of his SoHo apartment. Rich funds the right-wing attack group, Club for Growth, as well as the Sam Adams Alliance, the libertarian group that helped Eric Odom mastermind the very first tea party protests. A PBS expose on Rich found that he had funneled $7 million dollars into anti-government state initiatives throughout the country, while carefully hiding his identity and relationship to the “movement.”

– David and Charles Koch’s Front Group: The DISCLOSE Act is a “gambit to chill speech.” John Samples, a staffer at the Cato Institute — an anti-government think-tank founded by Charles Koch and funded still by David Koch — wrote an op-ed decrying the bill for curbing the speech of foreign-owned companies and for exposing the corporate backers of ads. David Koch funds Americans for Prosperity, which runs millions of dollars of attack ads against clean energy and health reform. But Americans for Prosperity bills itself as a grassroots citizens group, and never reveals that the Kochs founded the group and continues to finance it. The Koch brothers also fund a network of other secretive front groups and think tanks, but almost none of these right-wing groups openly bare the Koch name.

Notably, the Cato Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Center for Competitive Politics filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court to help knock down campaign finance laws in the Citizens United case.

The legislation also bars foreign corporations with domestic subsidiaries, federal contractors, and TARP recipients who have not repaid their funds from spending their money on politics.