Saving Democracy... Democratically

It's a tiny bit abstract, but more and more Americans are coming to understand the connection between the Supreme Court's corporate personhood thrust with the Citizens United decision and the unfortunate turn of events in all of our own lives. Short of armed rebellion and hanging the corporate judges, there's got to be a way for the people of this country-- purportedly a democracy-- to reclaim the power that's been given away to the corporate interests by a Supreme Court whose membership those interests have dictated. Every single candidate Blue America has endorsed, whether for the House or for the Senate feels overturning Citizens United is not just desirable, but essential for the well-being of the nation and for the success of democracy itself.

And one, state Senator Eric Griego (D-NM), has already done something about it. Last week, the New Mexico Senate passed a resolution, as that state's House already had, imploring the U.S. Congress to send the states a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. Eric Griego was one of the sponsors of that resolution and there's no doubt that if it isn't done by the time he's elected to Congress, he'll be acting on it then. Blue America didn't get behind Griego because he showed any signs in his career of sitting quietly on a backbench and waiting his turn. "I'm proud," he wrote, "to have co-sponsored the Senate solution (SM3) and cast the vote to allow our state to begin re-establishing our right to regulate elections. I strongly urge citizens across the country to keep pushing their states to do the same."

The Citizens United decision was more than just a blow to democracy. It was a blow to states' rights. Now states are scrambling to overturn the ruling and put their own campaign finance laws back in place.

In his dissent, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens derided the ruling for not only striking down a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, but also because "it compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well."

Cities and states across the country have been moving toward implementing so-called "clean elections" by allowing candidates the option of accepting public financing in lieu of private contributions. Albuquerque adopted public financing for city offices, and we were working to have the rest of the state follow suit when this ruling was passed down.

What the nation's highest court has effectively done is allowed our elections to be commercialized. Just as corporate America deluges us daily with messages about what products to buy and which services to hire, this decision will allow the corporate marketing of candidates. Instead of: "This product will make you sexier / happier / more wealthy," it will be: "This candidate is (or is not) sexier / smarter / more likable."

This shilling of candidates will not only make our political landscape more and more acrimonious, it will also make it impossible to elect candidates who represent the people. Just think of our best presidents-- Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.... Do you think that they could win a present-day election given the commercialization of our modern culture-- including our elections?

Political campaigns should be about issues. For those like me, elections should also be about promises kept or broken. Candidates should not win or lose because of money, or who looks best on TV and has the snappiest sound bites. Candidates should be about ideals, integrity, and fidelity to the common good.

Likewise, governing should not be about personal power. Governing, as it was envisioned by our founding fathers, should be about empowering the people. That is done by investing each individual, rich or poor, with an equal voice: their vote. The death knell for democracy will sound the day we allow money to become more powerful than the vote. The current outpouring of support for working families and the 99% shows that it hasn't happened yet.

Democracy requires vigilance, but we have proven that New Mexicans are up to the task. If there was ever time for a constitutional convention called by the states, it is now.

We must do more than fight for our right to decide who represents us in Washington. We must fight for the right to make our decisions without the cacophony of those who would influence our votes to further their own ends.

In committee two Republicans joined 5 Democrats in the Senate Rules Committee to support the resolution. In the end the New Mexico Senate voted 20-9 to approve the resolution. The House version had been approved 38-29 on January 31. Nationally, polling shows that large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and even Republicans (68%) support passage of a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. As Bill Moyers explains below, this movement against corporate personhood is beginning to take hold. Citiznes have joined together, not just in New Mexico and Hawaii (where a resolution like the New Mexico one had already passed), but in Montana, Colorado and Wisconsin to get the ball rolling on overturning the whole wrongheaded idea of corporate personhood in general and the outrageous corporate overreach of Citizens United in particular. So far lawmakers have introduced 13 constitutional amendment proposals doing this in Congress, and dozens more are being debated in state legislatures. If this is important to you, don't support or vote for anyone who favors corporate personhood. Remember, 9 Republicans in the New Mexico state Senate voted against the resolution-- as did 29 in the state House. Even though Republicans on a grassroots level support overturning Citizens United the corporatists who control their party in Congress will fight that every inch of the way. Corporate shills like John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Fred Upton, Buck McKeon, Patrick McHenry, et al are staking their political futures on holding onto Citizens United and fundamentally changing, distorting, the nature of American democracy so that votes are always weighed by the amount of money the voter is willing and able to put behind his decision.