A Battle In Congress: The Reformers vs The Corruptionists

Friday, Brave New Films released this short, powerful clip of Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), Vanita Gupta (of the Leadership Conference) and Sherrilyn Ifill (of the NAACP) at the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on H.R.1, the new bold and decisive groundbreaking reform package that includes voting rights, campaign finance and anti-corruption ethics reforms. They are seen here schooling one of the Republican witnesses/proud voter suppressors. The bill shouldn't be seen as partisan-- just one that pits corrupt members of Congress against reformers who want to start ridding the institution of the grotesque corruption that plagues it. (Key word there was "start," since Congress will never emerge from the swamp/sewer until this is instituted:

Last week Ella Nilsen, writing for Vox, noted that the lobbyist community is mounting an opposition strategy to the package of legislation.

The National Association of Business Political Action Committees and its members met at the law offices of their legal counsel Wiley Rein on Tuesday to discuss the bill’s impact. The group is calling the anti-corruption bill, commonly known on the Hill as HR 1, “potentially onerous legislation,” and told its members to “immediately begin engaging on this topic with your donors, senior executives and Hill allies.”

This isn’t the only group concerned about Democrats making HR 1 their first priority in the new Congress. The wide-ranging bill would require Super PACs to make their donors public, enact lobbying registration requirements with more oversight of foreign agents, set up nonpartisan redistricting commissions to end partisan gerrymandering, and create national automatic voter registration, among other actions.

The Conservative Action Project released a memo on Monday calling the bill “the ultimate fantasy of the left,” which was signed by Republican figures including former Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and former House Majority Leader Tom Delay. (Delay resigned from Congress in 2006 after questions about his ties to infamous DC lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and was convicted of campaign money laundering in 2010.)

Conservative and libertarian group FreedomWorks has been circulating a form letter to members for the past two weeks, calling HR 1 a “dangerous bill” and saying it would restrict free speech and open up the country to one-party rule by Democrats.

Washington’s lobbyist and influence industries seem nervous, but they can rest easy for at least two more years; there’s absolutely no chance that HR 1 will become law under the current Congress. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell outlined his staunch opposition to the bill in detail in a Washington Post op-ed a few weeks ago-- all but guaranteeing it won’t see the light of day in the Senate.

But perhaps anticipating an era similar to the post-Watergate reforms, pro-business and lobbying organizations are starting to worry.

“No matter when this kind of bill would be put on the calendar, we’re going to oppose it, based on what it is,” FreedomWorks press secretary Peter Vicenzi told Vox.

The most common attack on HR 1 is that its transparency requirements for donors to Super PACs and “dark money” organizations are a blow to constitutionally protected free speech. Groups like the Conservative Action Project say the bill would upend free speech by making public which donors are giving to PACs. The 2010 Supreme Court decision on Citizens United in effect gave corporations the same powers as citizens in political spending.

The aim of HR 1 is to cut down on the excess of money influencing who gets elected and how policy is made in Washington, DC, but these groups often frame their arguments by saying the bill will unjustly hurt small donors as well.

“This hurts Americans by revealing their names when they might want privacy,” Vicenzi said. “This isn’t even for big donors, this hurts the little guy.”

Of course, the amount of money big donors are spending on Super PACs dwarfs that of individual small donors. The top 10 donors to super PACs in 2018 were millionaires and billionaires (a mix of Democrats and Republicans)-- together, they account for more than $400 million donated to super PACs in 2018 alone, according to OpenSecrets data.

The 2018 midterms cycle was the most expensive midterm election in history and became the second-most expensive cycle ever when it came to outside spending, considering both midterm and presidential elections, per an OpenSecrets analysis.

Washington’s influence industry has other problems with HR 1. Jan Baran, the attorney who is providing guidance to NABPAC on the legislation, outlined concerns that the provisions in the bill meant to restrict foreign nationals from influencing American elections would also restrict the ability for American corporations who may have a foreign national as an executive or a shareholder to keep their PACs or donate to them.

“If a corporation with even one foreign national executive, director, or shareholder with voting shares is considered a ‘foreign national’ under HR 1, then the corporation would be subject to the same prohibitions,” Baran wrote in a presentation to NABPAC that was shared with Vox. (Baran was involved in the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court case, he wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce that was cited in the court’s decision.)

Conservative groups and politicians, including McConnell, have also outlined concerns about HR 1’s steps to eliminate partisan gerrymandering by incentivizing states to set up nonpartisan redistricting commissions. They also object to its proposed restructuring of the Federal Elections Commission to seat five commissioners instead of six. Democrats say this will reduce gridlock on the commission (something that former FEC commissioners of both parties have complained has paralyzed the body from doing its job), but conservative groups say it will make it more partisan.

“From the First Amendment to your ballot box, Democrats want to rewrite the rules to favor themselves and their friends,” McConnell wrote in his op-ed. “Upending the FEC, squeezing taxpayers, attacking privacy and jeopardizing our elections are a price they’ll happily pay for this partisan power grab.”

Combined with the fact that more politicians coming to Washington and running for president are taking a no-corporate PAC pledge, Democrats see signs the influence industry is scared they are serious about real reforms.

“I think [McConnell] and others perceive that if we get this passed in the House and make this strong declaration to the public... that begins to create momentum and pressure on him,” said Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD), the main sponsor of HR 1.

You caught that plea from the the National Association of Business Political Action Committees for members to reach out to their allies on Capitol Hill (above)? Well, who are those allies? Lobbyists and their firms have contributed $305,244,150 to members of Congress' election kitties since 1990. These are the crooks who are still in Congress who have accepted the biggest amounts from the lobbyists; first the dozen lobbyist-friendly senators:

Mitch McConnell (R-KY)- $1,770,235
Patty Murray (D-WA)- $1,627,145
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)- $1,612,054
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)- $1,537,906
Ed Markey (D-MA)- $1,501,730
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)- $1,458,602
Rob Portman (R-OH)- $1,420,104
Jon Tester (D-MT)- $1,388,462
Bob Casey (D-PA)- $1,352,250
Roy Blunt (R-MO)- $1,297,522
Mark Warner (D-VA)- $1,208,669
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)- $1,171,185

And now the dozen distinguished members of the House who don't seem to think there's anything wrong with taking massive contributions from people whose only job is to get you to vote the way the people who pay them want you to vote. That this isn't illegal is simply mind-boggling. One brief note-- Frank Pallone, a notoriously corrupt New Jersey pol, is the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Richard Neal (D-MA) is the chairman of House Ways and Means:

Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $1,229,341
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $930,214
Greg Walden (R-OR)- $926,327
Don Young (R-AK)- $885,255
Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- $754,219
Fred Upton (R-MI)- $735,089
Pete Visclosky (D-IN)- $668,422
Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $653,062
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)- $642,589
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)- $608,142
Richard Neal (D-MA)- $605,220
Jim Clyburn (D-SC)- $598,029

Afghanistan And Libya Have Something In Common-- More Death, Destruction And Wasted Tax Dollars

Rep. Karen Bass did the right thing yesterday

Yesterday Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) pointed out during the debate over NPR that public radio is twice as popular as the American occupation of Afghanistan. That didn't stop Republicans from ramming through a resolution to defund NPR-- or one to keep the war going. Dennis Kucinich's resolution to safely remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of year had a dozen cosponsors: Mike Capuano (D-MA), John Conyers (D-MI), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Bob Filner (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), Walter Jones (R-NC), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). In the end, 8 Republicans and 85 Democrats voted to end the occupation. 222 Republicans and 99 Democrats voted for endless war. It failed 93-321.

No Democrats who voted against the resolution will be eligible for a Blue America endorsement in 2012. One of the Republicans eager to continue the war, Dave Reichert in the Seattle suburbs, voted against the wishes of his district. The Democrat-- and Blue America endorsee-- who almost beat him in 2008 was Darcy Burner. I'm hoping she runs again next year and I asked her how she was thinking about the war during the vote yesterday. She told me "Our strategy in Afghanistan isn't working. It's way past time we ended the war. Congressional Republicans claim we're so broke that we can't afford to educate our kids, repair our roads, keep cops and firefighters on the job, or invest in clean energy. But then they turn around and vote to keep spending $118 billion per year on our military presence in Afghanistan-- more than the cost of all of the catastrophic cuts they've proposed combined Our military succeeded in driving al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan. We won. Now let's come home."

I also spoke to two pro-peace stalwarts in Florida who Blue America will always be behind, neither of whom had a chance to vote yesterday. Last year Alan Grayson introduced a bill similar to the one Kucinich introduced. I spoke with him on the phone minutes after the vote yesterday and this is what he told me:

We are cutting funds for schools, police departments, fire departments, health clinics, sanitation, water and sewer services, highway departments and public transportation, but it seems like there is always money for war. In the right wing’s New America, you can forget about health, safety, jobs, benefits, reading, writing, and getting from point A to point B. But thanks to our spending almost $1 trillion a year on the military, at least you won’t have to worry about a Soviet invasion.

Nick Ruiz is running for the House seat next door to Alan's and currently occupied by right-wing rubber stamp Sandy Adams. She voted for more war. He wouldn't have. "When industrial scale war operations become the number one special interest of the United States government, as evinced by the fact that we spend approximately half of all the revenue we take in on military activities-- it comes as no surprise at all, that despite the valiant efforts of Rep. Dennis Kucinich and others to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, they are simply outnumbered, and in this case, outgunned by the radical Republican Right. With order takers like Rep. Sandy Adams all over America ready to execute the agenda of the Republican brass at beckon call-- Democrats had better buck up, or the war years shall never end."

If you'd like to hep Nick's campaign, you can do it here... or perhaps you want endless war in Afghanistan.

A personal note here. Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign-- and an old friend and ally-- introduced me to California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass on the night she announced her run for the House seat that Diane Watson was retiring from-- the House seat in my own Los Angeles district. Karen has been on the right side of all the tough issues in this state. But after chatting with her about education policy I asked her about Afghanistan. She is against war and went off on Bush. I think I stunned her by reminding her that the occupation of Afghanistan is an Obama problem now, not a Bush problem and I asked her if she would be willing to vote to defund that occupation despite Obama wanting it to continue. She seemed to look at me like I was from another planet. I don't think the idea had ever crossed her mind. Later when she addressed the whole group of people at Rick's house she pointed to me-- not in an entirely friendly way-- and said I wanted her to oppose the president.

Today, I'm proud to say, she did. It was her first war vote and she came through with flying colors, in effect, taking Alan Grayson's place on the line, voting the way he would have voted. I was so glad the Member of Congress representing my neighborhood really did represent my neighborhood, a neighborhood as adamantly opposed to Obama's failed occupation of Afghanistan as it was opposed to Bush's failed war there. Two California Republicans-- John Campbell and Dana Rohrabacher-- also voted to end the occupation. And so did 20 California Democrats besides Karen Bass-- Judy Chu, Anna Eshoo, Sam Farr, Bob Filner, Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Doris Matsui, Jerry McNerney, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Laura Richardson, Linda Sánchez, Loretta Sanchez, Jackie Speier, Pete Stark, Mike Thompson, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman and Lynn Woolsey.

Except for Mike Capuano (MA), Democrats likely to be seeking higher office next year-- Shelley Berkley (NV), Joe Donnelly (IN), Martin Heinrich (NM), and Chris Murphy (CT)-- all voted against Kucinich's resolution.

And is another war looming? An hour after the House voted to continue the occupation of Afghanistan into the knowable future, the UN Security Council voted unanimously-- with 5 abstentions (Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India)-- for a probably pointless No Fly Zone over All Measures Necessary Against Libya. Voting for the No Fly Zone were the U.S., U.K., France, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa.

The measure allows not only a no-fly zone but effectively any measures short of a ground invasion to halt attacks that might result in civilian fatalities. It comes as Colonel Qaddafi warned residents of Benghazi, Libya, the rebel capital, that an attack was imminent and promised lenient treatment for those who offered no resistance.

...The United States, originally leery of any military involvement in Libya, became a strong proponent of the resolution, particularly after the Arab League approved a no-fly zone, something that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called a “game changer.”

With the recent advances made by pro-Qaddafi forces in the east, there was a growing consensus in the Obama administration that imposing a no-fly zone by itself would no longer make much of a difference and that there was a need for  more aggressive airstrikes that would make targets of Colonel Qaddafi’s tanks and heavy artillery-- an option sometimes referred to as a no-drive zone. The United States or its allies might also send military personnel to advise and train the rebels, an official said.

In the most strident verbal attack on Colonel Qaddafi to date by an American official, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that the Western powers had little choice but to provide critical military backing for the rebels. “We want to support the opposition who are standing against the dictator,” she told an applauding audience in Tunisia on Thursday. “This is a man who has no conscience and will threaten anyone in his way.”

She added that Colonel Qaddafi would do “terrible things” to Libya and its neighbors.“It’s just in his nature. There are some creatures that are like that.”

The Qaddafi government responded to the potential United Nations action with threats.

“Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military facilities will become targets of Libya’s counter-attack,” it said in a statement carried on Libyan television and the official news agency, JANA, Reuters reported. “The Mediterranean basin will face danger not just in the short-term, but also in the long-term.”

There were reports on Thursday that warplanes were already bombarding the outskirts of Benghazi for a second day, opening shots, perhaps, in the battle. And after days of batterings at the hands of Qaddafi loyalists, the opposition forces welcomed the promise of Western assistance.

Is a U.S. president allowed to commit troops and stuff without a declaration of war? I thought that was impeachable when Bush did it. What's the difference?


Tallahassee Teabaggers Demanding Rubio Oppose Unconstitutional U.S. Attack On Libya

Sure, most of the teabaggers are clueless reactionary imbeciles and racists. This group in Tallahassee certainly fits that bill. But they are also demanding their boy Marco Rubio follow Ron Paul down a path against unconstitutional wars against small nations not attacking us, in this case, Libya. Regardless of warmongers Lieberman, McCain and Kerry, most Americans, not just crazed teabaggers, oppose attacking Libya. Will Rubio follow McCain and Lieberman-- or stick with the teabaggers who got him into office. Watch Ron Paul on the House floor yesterday:

June 8th Primaries And Propositions-- California

In 10 days, June 8, there are several important primaries: the Arkansas runoffs-- in which Blue America has endorsed proven progressive superstar Joyce Elliott for Congress and is helping raise money for Bill Halter, the candidate running against the odious Blanche Lincoln-- plus the races in Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and California. We'll continue looking at some of these contests over the next 10 days but, as we do every year, I want to focus on California Democratic ballot today, especially the down ticket races and propositions.

My friend Gus has an easy to remember formula for the California propositions: YES on 13 and 15; NO on everything else. Even I'll be able to remember that. But some of the NOs are more important than others. A few weeks ago we covered the battle over Prop 17, a slimy effort by Mercury Insurance to spend enough money on patently deceptive advertising on TV to persuade gullible consumers to remove consumer protections previously placed on insurance companies by voters. If you watch television-- even a little-- you cannot miss Mercury's patently misleading barrage of ads that promises lower rates-- like any insurance company, let alone these cutthroats who systematically discriminate against military vets and women (among others), has ever in the history of the universe voluntarily lowered rates, What it would really do is allow them to plaster their customers with unrestricted increases and penalties if there's any interruption in coverage (like if you don't have a car for a period for some reason, for example, or move out of the state for a while). Every single credible organization and media outlet in the state is urging a NO vote, including the Courage Campaign, CREDO, the California Democratic Party, AFSCME, the California Federation of Teachers, the California League of Conservation Voters, the League of Women Voters, the California Nurses Association and our pals at Calitics. Mercury is one of the worst corporate citizens on earth, on a level with BP and Fox; I started my vote against Prop 17 but ending my relationship with Mercury and going to a less horrible insurance provider for my coverage. But let's look at some of the other propositions we haven't covered yet.

Prop 13, which we're recommending a YES vote on, offers tax breaks for property owners who retrofit their buildings to bring them up to seismic stands though retrofits. It isn't a controversial proposition and even conservatives support it.

All of the rest of the voting is, in the end, about the corrosive, corrupting onslaught of corporate money gushing into California politics. Prop 14 is an anti-democratic shenanigan by Abel Maldonado and Arnold Schwarzenegger to prevent smaller parties-- whether Greens or Libertarians-- from ever appearing on the general election ballot. It limits voters' choices by mandating that the two top vote getters in a primary-- even if they're from the same party-- are the only two to appear on the general election ballot. Had that been in place in Kentucky, for example, the general election would be a rematch between Jack Conway and Dan Mongiardo and Rand Paul would be sitting at home muttering darkly about the Civil Rights Act instead of campaigning on ideas that polite people outside of the salve-holding states never admitted they held. In effect, there will be no party primaries-- with two Republicans competing in the more backward areas of Orange County, for example, and two Democrats competing against each other in the normal parts of the state. It's a terrible idea and is almost universally opposed.

Prop 15-- the only other one we're recommending a YES vote on-- is about Fair Elections. In fact, it's called the California Fair Elections Act. If passed it will set up a pilot program of public funding of campaigns for Secretary of State (starting in 2014) so that elections are about who is the best candidate and not just the best fundraiser. And better yet, it is paid for by a tax on lobbyists. Of course the Chamber of Commerce is opposing it; all civil groups favor it.

Prop 16, like 17, is a cynical enterprise and was put on the ballot by a corporation with the intent of tricking the public into screwing itself and turn consumers into victims. This one is courtesy of the bloodsuckers at PG & E. The aim-- which you would never guess from their slick multimillion dollar propaganda media campaign-- is simple: to perpetuate PG & E's monopoly on power, stifle competition from cooperative local green power generation organizations that are put together by progressive local governments. The Chamber of Commerce supports it and, again, they're alone as every single civic minded group in the state is against it-- from the non-partisan League of Women Voters to the Courage Campaign and the Democratic Party.

If you live in the 36th congressional district-- a stretch along the coast that starts up in Venice and heads south to San Pedro, taking in Mar Vista, El Segundo, Torrance, Manhattan Beach, Hawthorne, West Carson, Redondo Beach, Marina Del Ray and Hermosa Beach-- you have an opportunity to vote in one of the most iconic elections of the year, pitting a conservative longtime incumbent serving corporate interests (the odious Blue Dog Jane Harman) against a scrappy and highly principled progressive tribune of ordinary working families, Marcy Winograd. Marcy was Blue America's first endorsement of 2010.

Unlike Harman, some incumbents running on the 8th deserve re-election: Senator Barbara Boxer, Secretary of State Debra Bowen, Controller John Chiang, and Treasurer Bill Lockyer. The Attorney General race is tough for me to call. I can tell you that the worst choice would be the creep all over TV-- Facebook attorney Chris Kelly-- and I'm not keen on ex-L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo either. I'm lining San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, Santa Barbara Assemblyman Pedro Nava and 2 other Assemblymen, Alberto Torrico and Ted Lieu. I have nothing to say about the Democrats running for Governor or Lt Governor other than that Janice Hahn seems like a better choice in the latter race and that I went to see the blogger running, Mickey Kaus, in the former and he was just godawful and almost made me glad about Jerry Brown being a shoe-in.

In my own congressional district, Karen Bass is the best choice to replace Diane Watson. She has solidly progressive instincts and hopefully she'll hang around with a good crowd and start to understand that being a progressive doesn't necessarily mean parroting whatever middle of the road Barack Obama says and that solidly blue districts like CA-33 are where the impetus for progressive change has to start. That's Karen and I up top.

My friend Zack Webber has a grasp of the judicial races that I'm still as uninformed about as most voters:

L.A. County Superior Court Judges: In some cases there are more than one good candidate running. I met some of these candidates and also looked at various endorsements.
Office #28: Randy Hammock  
#35: Soussan Bruguera 
#73: Laura Matz 
#107: Tony de los Reyes
#117: Patricia Vienna 
#131 Maren Nelson

I'll study up and try to get up another post on June 7th with some more races.

Oh, and if there are any Republicans reading this-- Chris Riggs is an extremely right wing insurgent candidate looking to upset Ken Calvert. They'd probably vote alike most of the time but Calvert is a dishonest and profoundly corrupt character while Riggs is a straight arrow idealist who will at least be voting for all the crazy things the GOP pushes because he believes in them rather than because he's being paid to. DWT doesn't normally endorse in Republican primaries but Calvert is probably the single most corrupt man in the House-- well, among the half dozen most corrupt-- and does not deserve renomination. In November we're backing the exemplary progressive Bill Hedrick for that seat but we'd love to see a real battle between Bill's great ideas and Riggs' conservative delusions. And, given the nature of the district, Riggs would be the far easier Republican for Bill to beat. So... for the first time ever, DWT endorses, in the GOP primary in CA-44 (Riverside and Orange counties) a conservative Republican, Chris Riggs. (Digby and Amato would laugh in my face if I suggested Blue America do likewise so keep in mind this endorsement is just for the primary and just DWT, not Blue America. In fact, if you really want to do some good for the folks in the 44th CD, you'll donate to Bill Hedrick's campaign so that he can win in November against whichever conservative he has to run against. If you want to have a better understanding of Ken Calvert-- and of most conservative politicians-- watch what Chris Wallace of Fox News had to say about him: