Republicans And Their Blue Dog Allies Fight Disclosure Of Where Big Money In Politics Is Coming From

Ordinary Americans on both sides of the red/blue divide reacted the same way to the recent narrow ruling from the corporatist Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, Virtually everyone would like to see whittling away at democracy dealt with. Virtually. Those who don't want to see it dealt with are corporate executives, lobbyists, and, of course, the Republican and Blue Dog office holders who have built their political power from corporate patronage. The first step towards fixing it, the DISCLOSE Act passed yesterday 219-206, only 2 Republicans voting with the American people-- while 36 mostly corrupt Blue Dogs crossed the aisle to stand with corporate hacks like Boehner and Cantor.

Among the bad Democrats yesterday were many of the usual suspects, Boehner Boys like John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Melissa Bean (IL), Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Allen Boyd (Blue Dog-FL), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Mark Critz (DCCC-PA), Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD), Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN), Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA), Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID), Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ), Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA)... I think you get the picture. It would be more newsworthy if this crew of corporate shills voted with the Democrats!

Earlier this week People For The American Way released a poll showing that 77% of Americans-- including majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans-- support a Constitutional Amendment to reverse Citizens United, and 74% would be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who felt the same. Let's hope those voters keep that in mind this November, when a safe bet would be to just vote against every single Republican and every single Blue Dog.

Yesterday the opposition to the legislation was led, as usual, by an annoyed John Boehner who seemed to resent he had to waste time in DC when he could be putting away on one of his favorite Florida golf courses. His clownish negativity about reform had to be contrasted to some of his past statements on the subject-- like on Meet the Press on February 11, 2007: “I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant.” One year before he gave a press conference where he also posed as a reform-minded good government type, maybe a little nervous about the incident with the tobacco lobbyist checks on the floor of the House: “The House is going to take up 527 legislation next week. And there may be several proposals on the floor in terms of how we rein in their activity. I think this was a gaping loophole in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. I think it needs to be fixed. To have all of this unregulated campaign cash going to these organizations and allowing them to engage in campaign activities without any disclosure is-- it's wrong. And so we've worked closely with Senator McCain. The House needs to deal with this, and we will next week.”

And just two weeks before that, Boehner was bullshitting about 527s: "The 527s were created out of the bipartisan campaign finance reform, something that many of us foresaw, that we were pushing money out of a regulated system into an unregulated system. You know, most people wanted to get rid of soft money because they didn't think it was regulated, even though soft money had to be disclosed in terms of who gave it, what amounts, and how you spent it-- and there were rules around how you could spend it. And when you look at what happened after campaign reform passed, these 527 organizations erupted. There is no disclosure of where their money comes from or how they spend it or what they do with it. And they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to influence federal elections. And I believe that these organizations ought to be covered under the same kind of regulations that govern political parties."

And his response yesterday? Aside from voting against what he himself said should be done in the past, he forced Republican discipline so that even members of his caucus uncomfortable with the notion of being labeled as corrupt so close to an elect, were all forced to toe the party line. The Democrat running for the western Ohio seat currently occupied by Boehner, Justin Coussoule expected no more from Boehner. "Why would anyone doubt that John Boehner would vote against restricting the expected avalanche of corporate contributions to extend their domination of our American political process? The idea, as expressed in the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision was foolhardy enough, pretending that corporations such as BP are to be recognized as 'persons' whose free speech and political contributions should be unlimited, but given the level of big oil, tobacco , insurance and pesticide contributions that Boehner chalks up like clockwork is it any wonder that he refuses to support meaningful restraints that ensure the transparency and keep our democracy on life support? Boehner once again has shown that he stands with faceless corporate power against the interests of citizens in his district and across the nation who often suffer from policies that he supports and for which he is richly rewarded by his big money benefactors."

Contrast Boehner's disingenuous approach to that of Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Nadler, calling the bill "an essential bill to reform the campaign finance system in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s January 21st decision in Citizens United v. FEC," said it has been irresponsible of the Supreme Court to rule that corporations are the same as people and have a constitutional right to pump as much money as they want into elections. "The very real danger now is that corporations, some with wholesome sounding names, will be able to use vast sums of concentrated money to further corrupt our political process. Without action, as a result of this activist Supreme Court decision, our electoral system will once again be at the mercy of large moneyed interests. The DISCLOSE Act will make a vast and substantial difference in protecting the integrity of our elections. The DISCLOSE Act, which is the most far-reaching campaign finance reform since McCain-Feingold, will:

•     Prevent government contractors from spending money on elections;

     •     Prevent corporate beneficiaries of TARP from spending money on elections;

     •     Prevent foreign nations, companies and individuals, or U.S. corporations controlled by foreign governments, from exerting influence on U.S. elections;

     •     Prevent campaign spenders from coordinating their activities with candidates and parties, thereby halting manipulation of elections by fly-by-night hit groups funded by corporations such as BP, special interests, foreign companies, and multimillionaires;

     •     Strengthen disclosure of electioneering communications, exposing Wall Street, Big Oil, insurance companies, and other special interest groups behind last minute attack ads and other election ads, and requiring their CEOs to stand by their ads;

     •     Enhance requirements for public disclosure of political expenditures by corporations, unions and non-profit organizations;

     •     Enhance disclaimers in ads, requiring sponsors and top donors to identify themselves and take responsibility for their ads;

     •     Require organizations that lobby to disclose political expenditures under the Lobbying Disclosure Act; and,

     •     Enhance requirements for disclosure of political expenditures to corporate shareholders and member of other organizations.

Another advocate of this bill-- and someone who helped craft it-- was Orlando congressman Alan Grayson. His was the amendment to limit foreign-owned companies from influencing American elections, which passed unanimously, even Republicans too embarrassed to vote against it. The amendment prohibits campaign spending by corporations who have a majority of their shares owned by foreign nationals and bans spending by foreign entities in which a foreign government, foreign government official, or foreign government-controlled company has more than a 5% ownership stake. “American elections are for Americans," he said. "We cannot put the law up for sale, and award government to the highest bidder. Democracy is for the people by the people-- not something into which foreign interests can buy... Foreigners cannot vote in our elections, so they should not be allowed to spend unlimited money to buy votes either. [It] protects against the threat of a corporate takeover of government in America. By keeping control in the hands of citizens, and away from foreign influences, we are protecting our country. Decisions will be made by those with our best interest in mind."

Several of our Blue America candidates fully agree with Grayson that these kinds of decisions are being made by people who do not have our bets interests in mind-- but their own. Oklahoma state Senator Jim Wilson is running against one of the few Democrats to vote with the Republicans on this, reactionary Blue Dog Dan Boren. This morning Jim told me that Boren's vote makes it "even more obvious that Dan Boren believes in a Bourgeois Society in which the wealthy and their offspring and chosen few control the masses. Could it be he thinks the citizens of Oklahoma Congressional District 2 are his proletariat, the poorest class of working people without the ability to select a representative who is not chosen by class?"

Our two Southern California progressive candidates, Beth Krom and Bill Hedrick-- each of whom is challenging one of the recipients of laundered Texas Freedom Fund money (which neither will return)-- both had serious questions about why their opponents refused to vote for the legislation. Bill Hedrick: "Who could oppose the right of citizens to know who is paying for political ads? Who could oppose limits on corporations with significant foreign ownership from meddling in US elections? No one, with the exception of those candidates like Ken Calvert expecting to benefit form a gush of corporate-funded ads.

"The DISCLOSE Act is a first step toward addressing the wrong committed against the American political process when the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate influence. It has been said that when the light goes on, the roaches scatter.  The DISCLOSE Act shines a bright light on secretive political ads.  It will be fascinating to watch the scurrying when those paying for ads must be revealed."

Beth's opponent, John Campbell, is the same kind of sleazy operator as Calvert and she couldn't say she was surprised by his vote. By now, everyone knows what he's all about-- himself. Beth:

Once again, my opponent, John Campbell has sided with special interests instead of supporting greater transparency for the American people. Apparently he thinks organizations airing political ads shouldn’t have to disclose where the money to fund the ads is coming from. Since most of his fundraising dollars have come from special interest PACs, it appears self interest has played a large role in his opposition to the DISCLOSE ACT.

Why should special interests be allowed to spend millions of dollars to influence the outcome of elections, without having the same public disclosure requirements American citizens must adhere to? If corporations are granted the same rights as citizens, they should have the same obligations.

Unchecked influence in our political process has undermined our democracy and degraded the quality of our leadership. In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions to freely spend their own funds to influence the outcome of elections, it seems only fair that there should be public disclosure of how that campaign activity was paid for.

In less than one minute on the House floor, Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson summed up the DISCLOSE Act in a way anyone can understand: