It's All About The Money-- It's Not About The Thanksgiving

Last summer we looked at legislation Alan Grayson proposed to end the over-militarization of local police departments, long before "Ferguson" became synonymous with overly militarized local police departments. Grayson's amendment failed-- by a lot-- 62-355, only 19 Republicans and 43 Democrats having the foresight and wisdom to back it. One of the 43 Democrats who did vote correctly was Hank Johnson, who represents the suburbs west of Atlanta all the sway out past Covington. He's using the issue to try to raise money. His e-mail sounds creepy:

Dear justice seeker,

We are gaining some serious momentum, and I’m confident this won’t be our last chance for victory-- as long as we keep spreading the word through DontMilitarizeMainStreet.com and putting pressure on Republicans. The Justice Fund will keep pushing police militarization as a major national priority, but we can’t do it without your support.

Will you become a Justice Fund 2016 monthly sustainer TODAY for $10 a month?

I will never stop pushing this legislation, but we don’t know what the next legislative session-- with Republican majorities in both chambers-- will bring. Likely, two more years of gridlock. We have to take advantage of the next two weeks, and we need to be prepared to fight hard next year.

That’s why we need you to step up by midnight tonight. Give $25 for the most impact.

For one thing, OK, Hank, you voted right. Good. In a gerrymandered majority minority district with a PVI of D+21 that Obama won with 74% that isn't exactly a profile in courage. And there's something unseemly about pushing to the front of the parade and trying to solicit contributions from people based on it. It's also misleading to insinuate that the problem was "Republicans." Are Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn, Steve Israel, Ben Ray Luján, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Crowley, Xavier Becerra and Rosa DeLauro Republicans? Every single member of the House Democratic Party leadership team, except Donna Edwards, voted against Grayson's amendment. So it isn't just a Democrat vs Republican problem. It's an out-of-touch political elite problem.

Today Rep. Johnson should step back from his crusade for a moment and think about doing something substantive for Walmart workers who are being treated unfairly over this holiday. It's another issue he can take a cue from Grayson on. This was-- at least in part-- Grayson's Thanksgiving message yesterday:

Thanksgiving was once a holiday reserved for spending time with our loved ones-- families across America gathered around the table to enjoy a meal with their families and give thanks.

But Thanksgiving’s importance has faded in recent years. The holiday is now merely a precursor to Black Friday-- the day in which stores like Walmart slash prices in an attempt to generate larger profits for themselves, at the expense of their employees. For Walmart’s corporate owners, Thanksgiving has become “Black Friday Eve”-- a day to pry families apart and work employees to the bone for next-to-nothing in wages.

Already, Walmart’s workers are severely underpaid and incredibly overworked. They’re often fired for reasons ranging from the inane to the unbelievable. They are unable to earn benefits. They have no stability in their schedules and no guarantee that they will have a job tomorrow. And at no time of the year is Walmart’s abhorrent treatment of its employees better demonstrated than on Thanksgiving.

Walmart is the country’s largest employer, which means that Walmart’s employment practices generally set the standard for businesses all over the U.S. When Walmart refuses to give its workers a few measly hours off to celebrate Thanksgiving with their families, other businesses must do the same. Instead of forcing hardworking Americans to pay the price for Walmart CEO’s corporate gain, Walmart should be setting an example for all retailers: give hardworking families a well-deserved break. Give them a few hours to spend with their families on Thanksgiving. Treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

  I support the planned Black Friday protests because I believe that workers should be treated like human beings.

Rep. Johnson, I know you're seeking justice. Why not contribute some of the bucks that come in by midnight from your Justice Fund to the Walmart workers who wind up getting fired over this holiday?

Congressional Republicans Have A Philosophy Of Governance: Unyielding Opposition To EVERYTHING

The video above is part of a Frontline political exposé that aired on PBS last night. It documents a meeting that happened in Washington 4 years ago-- a meeting to undermine smooth governance in this country and put party above country in every single instance for the next four years. The stated purpose for undermining the economy and the government back then was to defeat Obama in 2012. Since Obama's very substantial reelection in November-- and the concurrent Democratic gains in the Senate and House-- Republican obstructionists have only redoubled their efforts in blocking every single initiative out of the President. But to what purpose? Obama, obviously, isn't running again? What does the GOP have up its sleeve? As Ezra Klein pointed out in the Washington Post yesterday, hitting the debt ceiling-- which a majority of House Republicans now favor-- would be much worse than a government shutdown.

A lot of Republicans seem to believe it is, or at least seem to be trying to believe that it is, and for good reason. Taking the debt ceiling hostage is a tricky political play. On the one hand, the appeal is that breaching the debt ceiling is so dangerous that the Obama administration can’t possibly let it happen. That’s where the leverage comes from. On the other hand, unleashing economic chaos unless you get your way is a tactic more closely associated with Bond villains than successful political parties.

...[T]he Republican dilemma: What if they convince themselves that breaching the debt ceiling won’t be that bad, and then it is bad-- far worse, even in an optimistic scenario, than the fiscal cliff, which they also weren’t willing to risk-- and they take all the blame? The likeliest answer is they’ll quickly fold, and in addition to having discredited debt-ceiling brinksmanship as a viable political tool, they’ll have discredited themselves, as well.

Even the virulently anti-American, neo-fascist Koch brothers, avatars for the replacement of democracy itself with a form of plutocracy, are urging the Republicans to not wreck the party with their blind recklessness. I guess you'd have to believe, despite consistent polling, that the GOP hasn't already done that already.

In any case, their latest attempts to undermine the country have inspired six members of the Progressive Caucus-- Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Peter Welch (D-VT) to propose new legislation meant to abolish the debt ceiling entirely which they see as superfluous and just another impediment for right-wing domestic terrorists to use as a weapon of sabotage against further economic recovery and against their bane, equality. According to Jerry Nadler, "Only a year-and-a-half after the last disastrous debt ceiling debate, House Republican leaders plan to use the same political brinksmanship again this year in order to impose their extreme and economically regressive agenda on the American people. A repeal of the debt ceiling would allow Congress to move forward with legislation that actually promotes jobs, economic recovery and growth... The modern debt ceiling, set in 1939 based on amendments to the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, consolidated federal debts in order to provide the U.S. Treasury more flexibility to reduce interest costs and minimize financial risks. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the House of Representatives, at times, used a mechanism, referred to as the Gephardt Rule, to automatically increase the debt ceiling to keep pace with annual congressional spending. In the last 10 years, Congress has voted to increase the debt ceiling 10 times. The 2011 debt ceiling face-off reflected a shift from 30 years of clean debt ceiling increases and resulted in Standard & Poor’s downgrading of the U.S. economy for the first time in history."

This morning, the six congressmembers proposing taking the debt ceiling threat out of the extremists' arsenal held a press conference explaining The Full Faith and Credit Act of 2013. Hank Johnson (D-GA) explained that “The process of raising the debt ceiling should not be used as political weapon against the American people and our credit rating. By tying the debate on spending and taxation to the debt ceiling, Republicans needlessly inflict pain to extract cuts to the social safety net. Repealing the debt ceiling would ensure that Tea Party Republicans can no longer hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage to further their extreme agenda.”

Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) explained why she decided to be one of the principle co-sponsors of the bill: "This manufactured debate on raising the debt ceiling is the direct result of Republicans choosing to hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage in order to protect the wealthiest Americans and enact cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We cannot allow Republicans to do what they did last year-- to threaten our entire economy to avoid paying for expenditures already enacted into law. It’s time to repeal the debt ceiling-- an unnecessary encumbrance that virtually no other country in the world has-- and give American families, businesses, and seniors confidence that we will meet our obligations, and that the economic integrity of our country will remain strong.”

Monday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke backed what they're trying to do. Speaking about the debt ceiling at the University of Michigan, Bernanke told his audience that "I think it would be a good thing if we didn't have it," although he added that the Republicans won't allow that to happen. Well, of course they won't. Undermining America is their agenda-- their only agenda.

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: