Lawrence Lessig vs Mike Simpson (R-ID)-- What It Means To The Rest Of Us

It's almost a truism of today's politics that "one man, one vote" has been replaced with "one dollar, one vote." We'll know we've recaptured our democratic form of government when that changes, when we no longer have a Supreme Court-- not to mention the two other branches of government-- made up of corporate whores whose idea of "balance" involves balancing the rights and privileges of corporations and Big Business against the rights and privileges of American citizens. Hillary Clinton is no more a part of the solution than her husband was or than Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush would ever be. Before I slip into another plea for an Elizabeth Warren candidacy, let me share a letter that came with the video up top, both from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who's has just motivated 47,506 Americans to chip in a total of $5,033,232 in 30 days to confront the problem head on.

On May 1, we announced a one-month goal of raising $1 million for our "Super PAC to end all Super PACs." We achieved that in 13 days.

Since then, we've aimed to raise $5 million more by midnight of Independence Day. We're at more than $3.3 million now with donations rushing in every minute.

If we reach our $5 million goal, generous donors will match it dollar for dollar-- bringing our war chest up to $12 million. $12 million will allow us to make campaign finance reform a huge election issue in 2014.

On his website he explains what he's doing in greater detail:

Campaigns for the United States Congress are privately funded in America. Eighty- five percent of that funding comes from large contributions. Candidates and political parties target the especially large contributors in their fundraising efforts. But the number of such contributors is tiny: No more than .05% of the American population gives even the maximum amount to one candidate for Congress. The number giving $10,000 or more is less than .01%.

This concentration gives the funders of political campaigns enormous power, either directly (as direct contributors) or indirectly (through the funding secured by lobbyists and other intermediaries). As Members of Congress become dependent upon these funders-- spending anywhere between 30% and 70% of their time raising money-- the influence of these funders grows. A trivial number of large contributors have the capacity to block reforms that are relatively invisible to the general public. A small number can affect the agenda of Congress or even block reforms that are generally popular. As a recent study from Princeton concludes, “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. governmental policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”

This dynamic is not partisan. Instead, it blocks reforms on the Left and Right. It blocks substantial legislative initiatives-- such as climate change legislation, or meaningful health care reform. It also blocks efforts to simplify taxes or shrink the size of government: All things being equal, complicated taxes and a more extensive government increase the ability of Members of Congress to raise money. As Robert Kaiser details in his book, So Damn Much Money (2010), that fact interferes with the legislative agenda of the Right as much as of the Left.

The founders of the MaydayPAC believe that this dynamic has destroyed the capacity of the United States government to govern. We believe it is critical to find a way to change the way elections are funded, to free legislators to pursue the reforms that motivate the voters to support them.

We have therefore established this superPAC with the objective of electing a Congress committed to fundamental reform of the way campaigns are funded. Based on the analysis by one of America’s most prominent political firms, we believe we can achieve this objective by 2016.

Our plan for reform has four stages:

1. In 2014, we will pilot the idea of a superPAC intervening in elections to support candidates who favor reform. The objective of this pilot intervention will be to both (a) convince Congress of the salience of this issue to voters, and (b) determine how best to intervene to move voters on the basis of this issue.

2. Based on what we learn in 2014, in 2016 we will engage in as many races we need to win a majority in Congress who have either cosponsored or committed to cosponsor fundamental reform legislation.

3. In 2017, we will then press to get Congress to pass, and the President to sign, legislation that fundamentally reforms of the way elections are funded.

4. After a Congress has been elected under this new system, we will push for whatever constitutional reform is necessary to secure the gains from this reform.

I suppose if you've never visited DWT before, you may have no idea how serious the issue of money in politics has become. There are stories popping up about how it is destroying our democracy, our country, our families… even mankind, every day. This week, for example, Michigan Public Radio singled out just one random crooked congressman, Boehner ally Michael Simpson of Idaho. Short version: arsenic special interests are paying off Simpson to make sure Americans are poisoned from arsenic. Sounds like Simpson should be drawn and quartered? Yeah, but instead he just won de facto reelection by beating back a populist opponent in a primary in, effectively, a one-party state.

David Heath is a senior reporter at the Center for Public Integrity, and he investigated why a health assessment on arsenic from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been delayed.

Why does this health assessment matter?

Heath said when the EPA first wants to determine how dangerous a toxic chemical is, they first do the science. These assessments can take a long time and the arsenic assessment has been going on for more than a decade.

"It's not until they have done the science to figure out exactly how dangerous a chemical is that they can really take action on it," Heath said. "So it really does come down to 'this is how they protect your health.'"

A single member of Congress, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, was able to intentionally delay the EPA's health assessment for years.

Heath wanted to know why.

He pored through documents he had already collected and traced campaign contributions, but when asked directly, Rep. Simpson said he was concerned about whether the EPA's science was good. He also cited concerns about how much it would cost water companies to meet new EPA standards.

A ban under scrutiny

In 2001, the EPA set a new standard for arsenic, and all water companies had to meet that standard by 2006.

"Typically they met it well below that standard, so that if there were a new standard a lot of companies that already made these changes probably wouldn't have to do it again," said Heath.

Heath interviewed an executive at a pesticide company that sells a weed killer with arsenic in it.

"Their product was slated to be banned at the end of last year… so they had been aggressively criticizing the EPA’s science, trying to delay any new regulations that would come from it," said Heath.

The delay from Simpson forced the EPA to lift the ban on this weed killer and it remains on the market.

"It had quite a huge financial impact on this company," said Heath.

What the delay means in Michigan

In the U.S., city water systems must meet the federal limit for arsenic, but if you're on a private well, there are no limits that have been set.

According to Heath, states rely on the EPA for guidance on how toxic certain chemicals are because they don't have the resources to do the analysis themselves. Michigan had to do a lot to meet the 2001 standard change.

"But the attitude, I think, was that once they did that, that was sort of the end of it. Until the EPA comes out with its new findings, I don't think you're going to see the state of Michigan really doing a whole lot," Heath said.

And no, Simpson hasn't actually broken any laws, laws carefully crafted by crooked politicians just like himself expressly so that they can behave this way. So he won't be going to prison-- and he won't be drawn and quartered. A little postscript I didn't see coming when I started writing today. Simpson has a Democratic opponent to his reelection. He'll be facing former Congressman Richard Stallings again. He beat Stallings, a conservative, anti-Choice Mormon Democrat, in 1998 when Mike Crapo ran for the Senate and the seat opened up. Previous to Crapo's tenure there, Stallings had been the incumbent. He beat Republican George Hansen after Hansen, who went to prison, was reprimanded by the House for failing to report criminal campaign contributions he solicited. Stallings beat him before he was arrested and held the seat for 4 terms (1984- 1992). He's been in the House race since mid-March and isn't being supported by the DCCC which is allowing Simpson-- and almost all close Boehner allies-- a free reelection pass.