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.

Liberal Congressman Mike Simpson? Really?

President Obama almost got a third of the votes in Mike Simpson's congressional district last year, down from a whopping 37% against McCain four years earlier. ID-02, like ID-01, is one red hellhole! Mike Simpson has been the congressman there since being elected in 1998. Before that, he was Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives. Since being elected, Simpson's lowest share of the vote was last year (65.1%, not quite two to one). He's had over 70% three times. He gets challenged by extremists from time to time but always beats them to a pulp without breaking a sweat. This time is different. As we mentioned in July, the Club For Growth has decided Simpson isn't conservative enough. His career-long ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is 3.85. By way of comparison, Paul Ryan's score is 4.22; Louie Gohmert's is 5.95; and Tim Huelskamp, who the Koch brothers are pushing to be the next Speaker, has a 9.70. Michelle Bachmann, Queen of the Tea Party, has a 4.08.

Now watch the video up top. The Club for Growth/teabagger candidate claims Simpson is a "liberal." Hey, at least they didn't call him a communist, or even a socialist. But it's still early in the campaign. A friend of mine driving up the 15 Freeway Thursday told me he heard the ad twice between Pocatello and Idaho Falls. It's also blasting in Boise. Idaho voters are going to be pretty confused-- unless they understand they're part of a strategy by extremists to weaken John Boehner and replace him as Speaker with a radical... like Koch puppet Huelskamp.

Huelskamp (KS) is the most conservative member of this list. He has never shied away from a fight with the party establishment-- for example, he is one of the few GOP members who believe that shutting down the government is the best strategy for combating the Affordable Care Act.

At an August town hall meeting, Huelskamp stated, “I told the speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, I don’t work for you,” claiming that Boehner had told him how to vote on a variety of issues, and accusing the GOP leadership of not being “aggressive” enough. Needless to say, Huelskamp could attract Tea Party Republicans, but he may face a problem with the rest of his party, which he believes is composed of “weak-kneed Republicans.”

Club For Growth Goes To War-- Civil War Against Conservative Republican Mike Simpson (ID)

Idaho is very red. And Mike Simpson's district, ID-02, has a PVI of R+17. Folks there went for McCain 61-37% and last November voted for Romney 64-33%. Simpson, a 62 year old Mormon dentist, was reelected over Democrat Nicole LeFavour 65-35% and of the 26 counties in the district Simpson won 24-- all but Ada and Blaine. Simpson won 8 counties with over 80% of the vote. The former Speaker of the state House of Representatives, Simpson first won the seat in 1998 when Mike Crapo left the seat and went to the Senate. He's close with Boehner and is considered one of the House GOP "cardinals." He far less "independent" that Raul Labrador, Idaho's other Republican congressman. Labrador has a career-long ProgressivePunch crucial vote score of 14. Simpson's is much more conservative: 3.92, more right-wing than radicals like Michele Bachmann (4.05), Paul Ryan (4.26), Mike Coffman (5.30), Matt Salmon (5.80), Louie Gohmert (5.34) and even militia posterboy Steve Stockman, who was implicated in the Oklahoma City bombing (9.44). In the past we've reported on the fringe right's very well-financed jihad against mainstream conservatives. Deranged former Congressman Chris Chocola, now at the Club For Growth, is one of the leaders of that effort and he targeted Simpson. He's threatening to primary 10 mainstream conservatives with his Primary My Congressman initiative. A press release this week explained that Simpson is first and that the Club has endorsed right-wing sociopath Bryan Smith as the tool.

“Bryan Smith is a champion of economic freedom and a fighter for lower taxes and limited government,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “We met with Bryan months ago after hearing about him through PrimaryMyCongressman.com, and we’re confident that he’ll be a strong conservative alternative to RINO incumbent Mike Simpson. The Club for Growth PAC is proud to endorse his candidacy.”

“Career politician Mike Simpson is one of the biggest liberals in the Republican Party today. He voted to bail out Wall Street, to raise the debt limit by trillions, and for the fiscal cliff tax increase. He was one of just three Republicans who voted against cutting funding for the radical left-wing group ACORN. If all that weren’t bad enough, Mike Simpson is one of the biggest defenders of wasteful earmarks in the history of Congress and a big spender who even voted against cutting the spending out of the Obama stimulus. It’s time for Idaho voters to throw Mike Simpson out, and Bryan Smith is the man to replace him,” concluded Chocola. 

The right-wing website, National Review, is already calling it a primary fight to watch and the biggest paper in the state was scratching its head and trying to figure out why the Club For Growth is calling Simpson a crazy liberal.

Apparently anticipating the endorsement, Simpson issued a news release about two hours before the Smith endorsement, saying he’d raised more than $300,000 between April and June. In 2006, Club for Growth spent $1.1 million to elect 1st District GOP Rep. Bill Sali in a race for an open seat.

Smith, who announced his campaign last month, has yet to file a campaign finance report. But his campaign manager, Carrie Brown, said Smith had raised $147,000 in the 2nd quarter. Reports are due July 15.

Local pundit Randy Stapilus warns that Simpson is vulnerable to an attack from the far right that could unseat him. For one thing, in an off year election, right-wing activists will have a more dominant presence in the primary-- and, under new rules, only party members can vote. One of Smith’s most visible supporters was the lead architect of Republican primary registration, former legislator Rod Beck.

Smith is getting an early start, much earlier than Simpson’s primary opponents in the past. We don’t yet know what kind of candidate he will be, but the long stretch between here and the primary election, most of a year, can be a powerful thing if a candidate has the personal goods to make the sale. He surely goes in as an underdog, but the potential is there to change that. His activist-style message is much the same as the one Raul Labrador has ridden to success in the other Idaho House district, and if he organizes well enough it could catch hold in the second district too. Many of Simpson’s real assets-- close ties to House leadership, deep experience, genuine legislative skill, and ability to work with a range of people-- could be trouble for him in a closed Republican primary.

It's worth listening to Alan Grayson explaining the dynamic of how the far right uses this tactic to keep more mainstream conservatives in line and to push them further right:

Huckabee Warns GOP Leaders They Are On The Road To Becoming As Irrelevant As The Whigs

Huckabee comes out against outreach to mainstream Americans

Last week we had a Whig history lesson here at DWT, and since then I've been deluged with e-mail from Whigs from every part of America. One Whig was sharp enough to figure out how to post a comment! Another (unposted) came from a Whig who read Ken's discovery that Tom Ridge was a paid lobbyist for Albania and went on and on about the recent Whig Party's relationship with Albania and its troubles in the Balkans.

So, of course, I was fascinated when CNN reported that Republican vice-presidential longshot Mike Huckabee declared that the GOP is at risk of becoming "irrelevant as the Whigs." I doubt either CNN or even Huckabee knows that the GOP was born out of the disintegration of the Whigs and that, in fact, Abe Lincoln, the last great Republican president, started his political career as a Whig!

With many ex-Republicans now fleeing back to the Whig Party, Huckabee may be touching a sensitive nerve that will come to haunt him and the rest of the left behinds.

In an interview with the California newspaper the Visalia Times-Delta, Huckabee said the GOP would only further decline in influence should it alienate social conservatives-- largely considered the most energetic and loyal faction of the party.

"Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs," he said in reference to the American political party that largely disbanded in the mid 1800s.

"They'll basically be a party of gray-haired old men sitting around the country club puffing cigars, sipping brandy and wondering whatever happened to the country. That will be the end of the party," he said in the interview published Thursday.

Huck was speaking disparagingly-- with Limbaugh's blessing-- about the cosmetic outreach being made by Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Eric Cantor to mainstream conservatives and GOP moderates horrified how their party has been taken over by the haters, bigots, Know Nothing extremists, and religious radicals. Huckabee may have been upset that the GOP Establishment didn't include him in the re-branding effort.

Meanwhile NY Times political analyst Carl Hulse reported that Republican members of Congress have finally seen the writing on the wall and that the GOP's lockstep obstructionist strategy has started to crumble. As we've being seeing more and more non-Southern Republican members of the House, back from visiting their districts, have realized that the public is not feeling any sympathy with all this sabotaging of Obama's change agenda.

Scores of House Republicans joined Democrats in recent days in pushing through measures meant to rein in credit card companies, increase federal resources to pursue financial fraud and crack down on predatory housing lenders-- all legislation opposed by top House Republicans. On the credit card and financial fraud bills, only a minority of Republicans ended up opposing them.

“It is hard to say we shouldn’t put in more stringent standards on mortgage lending, given what has happened in the past,” said Representative Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican who backed all three measures.

And yet Simpson is in one of the safest Republican districts in America. He won re-election last year with 71% of the vote, 205,777 to 83,878. McCain took the district with 61% and only two counties (of two dozen), tiny Teton on the Montana border and Blaine, went for Obama. Simpson is an affable Mormon dentist who rarely strays from the party line. But he was one of the 60 Republicans on Thursday who stampeded across the aisle and told Boehner, Cantor, Hensarling and Ryan, the architects of the obstructionist agenda, to shove it. The day before Simpson had joined 117 Republicans-- a majority-- in skipping across the aisle and voting with the Democrats on the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, much to the chagrin of Boehner and the Limbaughist extremists, lunatic fringe America-haters like Steve King (IA), Pete Sessions (TX), Patrick McHenry (NC), Mike Pence (IN), John Shadegg (AZ), Jason Chaffetz (UT), Tom Price (GA), Michele Bachmann (MN), David Dreier (CA), Virginia Foxx (NC), etc.

The Republican willingness to join with Democrats on some legislation has come gradually but does suggest that the notion of bipartisanship is not the mirage some have declared it to be. If the trend continues, it could become problematic for the Republican leadership, especially if it is interpreted as a lack of confidence in the party’s opposition stance.

To many in the leadership of the radical right, there are more important fish to fry than protecting their pals, the predatory lenders. They are panic-stricken that the Democrats could pass real health care reform, something that could be another nail in the Republican coffin. “There is a truism in baseball and in Congress,” said Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 House Republican, who opposed the lending, financial fraud and credit card measures. “You can’t swing at every pitch. But where we think the interests of the American people require a strong unified opposition, we let our membership know that and we have a high degree of success.” In other words, thugs like Pence won't beat up on members like Simpson on issues that are overwhelmingly popular with voters-- like reining in the banksters-- as long as they remain solid on killing health care reform. And if they don't, the leadership knows they can always turn Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter lose on them-- a death sentence for any Republican running for re-election.