Big Money In Politics Is Ugly And Should Be Illegal

Friday, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, reporting for the Washington Post, named the 11 biggest donors to SuperPACs since the Citizens United case was wrongly decided by a right-wing, corporate Supreme Court.

1- Sheldon Adelsons (R)- $287 million ($112 this cycle)
2- Tom Steyer (D)- 213.8 million
3- Michael Bloomberg (I)- 120.7 million
4- Fred Eychaner (D)- $74.1 million
5- Donald Sussman (D)- $62.9 million
6- Richard Uihlein (R)- $61.3 million
7- James Simons (D)- $57.9 million
8- Paul Singer (R)- $42.5 million
9- Robert Mercer (R)- $41.2 million
10- George Soros (D)- $39.4 million
11- Joe Ricketts (R)- 38.4 million

So... 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats-- although Eychaner is a huge supporter of the Republican wing iff the Democratic Party-- and Bloomberg, who was an independent giving to both sides and is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination and gives massively to help Democrats. As Lee put it, a bunch of hedge-fund billionaires, entrepreneurs, media magnates and a casino mogul."

What do you think? Heroes of America? Oligarchs who should be stood up in front of a wall, handed a last cigarette and shot by a firing squad? "Just 11 donors," she wrote, "have injected $1 billion into U.S. political races in the past eight years through super PACs, the big-money entities that have given wealthy contributors a powerful way to influence elections... together contributed more than one-fifth of the $4.5 billion collected by super PACs since their inception in 2010... The intense concentration of money shows how a tiny group of super-rich individuals has embraced these political groups, which have emerged as indispensable allies of candidates and political parties since the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision in 2010. That ruling helped give rise to super PACs, which are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political activity."

"Indispensable?" Really? I don't think so. Destroyers of democracy sounds more accurate-- especially if you care to read it in this context, which I highly recommend. Meanwhile, NBC reported yesterday that Democrats outraised Republicans in about 90% of the most competitive House districts in the last 3 weeks.

Out of 107 House races rated as Toss Ups, Lean or Likely contests by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, 97 saw the Democrat outraising their GOP competitor. In 70 of those races, the Democratic candidate will enter the final weeks of the election with more cash on hand.

The new data shows that Democratic fundraising-- which has continually outpaced GOP hauls-- isn’t waning as the election clock ticks down, even as Republicans cite tightening races and increased Republican voter enthusiasm. The average Democratic candidate in a competitive race raised about $528,000, while the average Republican clocks in at just $196,000 on average. The discrepancy is somewhat less when it comes to money left in the bank; the average Republican has about $490,000, while the average Democrat has $691,000... A total of 50 House candidates in competitive races raised more than half a million dollars in this 17 day fundraising period. Of those, just six are Republicans.

These were some of the Democratic heavy-hitters in October:

• Democrat Kim Schrier in WA-08 outraised Republican Dino Rossi by nearly $1.3 million.
• Democrat Antonio Delgado in NY-19 outraised Republican John Faso by more than $1 million.
• Democrat Katie Hill in CA-25 outraised Republican Steve Knight by $824k.
• In NY-27, where indicted Rep. Chris Collins is still on the ballot, the Republican has raised just $1,799, compared with about $246k for his Democratic opponent.
• In VA-10, a race that heavily favors Democrat Jennifer Wexton despite outside GOP groups still spending on Republican Barbara Comstock, Wexton has $1.3 million in the bank, while Comstock is down to $544k.

All of those candidates are getting some level of help from the DCCC. If you want to help candidates who need some more money for their ground games and who the DCCC still refuses to help, I'd suggest Kara Eastman, J.D. Scholten, James Thompson, Audrey Denney, Jess King, Mike Siegel and the other candidates on the ActBlue page you will get to by clicking on the thermometer above. Bloomberg isn't riding to the rescue of any of them.

Steyer's Doing Good Work-- And Politics Is Not A Battle Between Good Billionaires And Bad Billionaires

Earlier today we looked at their billionaires, freaks like the Kochs and the Deasons. Meanwhile, a close friend of mine has been spending much of the summer at the Bohemian Grove, where Michael Bloomberg is strutting around, puffed up and bragging that he intends to buy the Democratic nomination for president. They have their freaks; we have ours.

There was some news yesterday about Tom Steyer, this cycle's biggest contributor on the left-- reportedly $110 million, more than Bloomberg is spending. Steyer is smart enough to not give his money to the DNC or DCCC, where most money is used corruptly for pointless, even counter-productive consultants and their self-justifying and losing projects, especially commissionable broadcast TV and radio. Much to the chagrin of establishment status quo Democrats-- take Pelosi-- Steyers' money has gone into his own idea-oriented projects Need to Impeach and NextGen America, an environmental advocacy nonprofit and political action committee, although he did put a $1,000,000 into Andrew Gillum's gubernatorial campaign through his For Our Future PAC. Again, Gillum is decidedly not the candidate of the corrupt status quo Democratic establishment, neither in Florida nor in DC. Pelosi and establishment Democrats are no less angry with Steyer as Trump is with the Koch network-- also for focussing on ideas instead of on establishment party priorities

Steyer's e-mail list includes 5.5 million voters who want to see Trump impeached. That's heavy and very powerful-- and bigger than the NRA mailing list.

Anthony Kennedy and Our Delayed Constitutional Crisis

Image credit: Mike Thompson / Detroit Free Press

by Gaius Publius

Today’s announcement that Kennedy is retiring only consummates his abdication of responsibility. Kennedy has chosen to let a deeply dangerous president and his allies steer a badly damaged ship out to sea. Is it fair to judge an eighty-one year old man so harshly? Yes, it is.

–Yascha Mounk, Slate

Like "swing vote" justice Sandra Day O'Connor before him, "swing vote" justice Anthony Kennedy has been one of the worst Supreme Court jurists of the modern era.

With swing-vote status comes great responsibility, and in the most consequential — and wrongly decided — cases of this generation, O'Connor and Kennedy were the Court's key enablers. They 

• Cast the deciding vote that made each decision possible
• Kept alive the illusion of the Court's non-partisan legitimacy

Each of these points is critical in evaluating the modern Supreme Court. For two generations, it has made decisions that changed the constitution for the worse. (Small "c" on constitution to indicate the original written document, plus its amendments, plus the sum of all unwritten agreements and court decisions that determine how those documents are to be interpreted).

These horrible decisions are easy to list. They expanded the earlier decision on corporate personhood by enshrining money as political speech in a group of decisions that led to the infamous Citizens United case (whose majority opinion, by the way, was written by the so-called "moderate" Anthony Kennedy); repeatedly undermined the rights of citizens and workers relative to the corporations that rule and employ them; set back voting rights equality for at least a generation; and many more. After this next appointment, many fear Roe v. Wade may be reversed.

Yet the Court has managed to keep (one is tempted to say curate) its reputation as a "divided body" and not a "captured body" thanks to its so-called swing vote justices and the press's consistent and complicit portrayal of the Court as merely "divided."

Delaying the Constitutional Crisis

The second point above, about the illusion of the Court's legitimacy, is just as important as the first. If the Court were ever widely seen as acting outside the bounds of its mandate, or worse, seen as a partisan, captured organ of a powerful and dangerous political minority (which it certainly is), all of its decisions would be rejected by the people at large, and more importantly, the nation would plunged into a constitutional crisis of monumental proportions.

We are in that constitutional crisis now, but just at the start of it. We should have been done with it long ago. Both O'Connor and Kennedy are responsible for that delay.

O'Connor's greatest sin, of course, was as the swing vote in Bush v. Gore, the judicial coup that handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It was also widely reported that on election night at a dinner party "Sandra Day O'Connor became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona." (More on that here.)

Consider: If the Supreme Court were part of coup that makes a losing presidential candidate the winner, and makes that ruling along partisan and preferential lines that can't be judicially defended, how could any decision issued by that court be deemed legitimate afterward?

Yet here we are, still publicly asserting the Court's legitimacy, whatever people think privately, and still watching in horror as decision after decision dismantles old constitutional agreements and erects new ones.

The Legacy of Anthony Kennedy

Kennedy will be praised for his so-called "moderate" or "case-by-case" ideology, bolstered largely by decisions protecting gay rights. Perhaps that will be his legacy.

But in the main he has been horrible, with a record of ideological and indefensible votes capped by his landmark decision in the Citizens United case. Enough has been written about that to make repetition here unnecessary. As noted, Kennedy not only provided the crucial "swing vote," he also wrote the majority opinion, which in essence, reduced the broad and complex sweep of both public corruption and the appearance of corruption only to provable, documented, evidence-based quid pro quo exchanges. This is beyond naïve and touches itself the broader meaning of corrupt.

If justice exists in the world, his legacy will be this: First, in giving to Donald Trump the ability to hand a person of relative youth the fifth and deciding Republican vote on the Court, Kennedy has changed the Court for a generation. After his successor is confirmed, no good thing will come from the Court for the next 20 years, and much, perhaps fatal, damage will be done.

Second, thanks to Kennedy's handing his seat to Trump, the next new justice will be unable to claim the propagandistic "swing vote" mantle held by O'Connor and Kennedy, which fact should destroy the Court's perceived, illusory legitimacy forever. The full consequences of loss of legitimacy will be considered elsewhere, but suffice it to say that when a nation's highest court is not just captured, but widely seen to be captured, a constitutional crisis is at hand. 

This is the legacy Justice Anthony Kennedy, and though he may bask for the next few months in the glory of his pronounced moderation, the awful truth, to his enduring shame, should follow him to the grave — and be printed on it.

The Crisis to Come

Let's close by quoting Anthony Kennedy in the Citizens United case, the most bizarre defense of a decision in the modern era. (There have been many bizarre decisions — the "money is speech" decision in Buckley v. Valeo is among the worst in the last 50 years — but none has been as bizarrely defended by the Court as Citizens United.)

Remember that in Citizens United the Court, building on the decision in Buckley, ruled that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law limiting so-called "independent expenditures" by corporations and unions to political campaigns. (Of course, those independent expenditures are almost never independent at all, but that's another problem.)

To the objection that unlimited campaign contributions would foster widespread public corruption, Kennedy countered with this absurdity (quote taken from Jonathan Cohn here). In his majority opinion, Kennedy wrote:

[W]e now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. …

The fact that speakers [i.e., donors] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. …

The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.

Each assertion above strains belief that the writer is sane. Consider those assertions in simpler language:

1. Gifts of money don't corrupt.
2. Gifts of money don't look corrupt.
3. Influence over politicians doesn't corrupt.
4. Voters will have no problem with nakedly bought elections.

The first three are either plain nonsense, in which case Kennedy is unqualified to sit on the bench at all, or nonsense in service of ideology, in which case Kennedy is a political actor on an already captured Court.

The obvious explanation is the latter.

But the worse of his assertions may be the fourth, which is also patently wrong. That assertion, which says in effect "and people will let us get away with all these changes," has set the final table for the constitutional crisis to come — the one that questions the legitimacy of the Court itself and with it, perhaps, our entire political process.

That crisis, if it does come, will tear the national fabric as fundamentally as any of the earlier three — the crisis of 1776, the crisis of 1860, and the Great Depression. We're now much closer to that point than anyone with a microphone or media column inches will say. But you did hear it here. Stay tuned.

GP
 

Time To Stop Talking About Getting Money Out Of Politics And Do It!

This weekend the California Democratic Party may feel the Bern. The Party's convention is in Sacramento and late this afternoon, the resolution committee will be working on getting the undo influence of money out of the political system. The video above explains what they're trying to accomplish. Below is the resolution as it now stands:

Resolution:  Denounce the influence of money in politics, and act in accordance with the California Democratic Party (CDP) platform

WHEREAS the 2016 CDP platform states “…a healthy democracy is based on public financing of political campaigns at all levels of government, campaign spending limits and full disclosure of political spending… We will fight the culture of corruption [and] cronyism…;” and

WHEREAS money’s influence in politics corrupts a healthy democracy as stated in the Princeton Study (2014) “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” in the 2011 model legislation “American Anti-Corruption Act,” and in the Sunlight Foundation Study (2014) “Fixed Fortunes:  Biggest Corporate Political Interests Spend Billions, Get Trillions,” which reports that the 200 most politically active companies in the U.S. spent $5.8 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions from 2007-2012, and those same companies got $4.4 trillion directly back from the government they lobbied; and

WHEREAS so far, voters in over a third of the states in the Union, including California, have voted to overturn Citizens United v. FEC (2010), demonstrating that the voters want to end the funding of political expenditures by corporations;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CDP will publicly condemn corporations and lobbyists that finance political campaigns, as they perpetuate a culture of corruption and cronyism and thus violate the CDP platform; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CDP will send a copy of this resolution to the California Congressional Delegation, including all its elected officials, calling on the delegation and elected officials to unwaveringly uphold the CDP platform, and reminding them that failure to do so is a dereliction of their elected and fiduciary duties as members of the CDP, as well as a copy sent to the Democratic National Committee.

The California congressman working hardest to pass this is Ro Khanna and you can hear him talking about it in the video up top. You'll also hear Bernie discussing why this is so crucial in our lives.

Today Ro told me that "Those of us in Congress need to wake up. The American people have no confidence in the institution. They want money out of politics. They want an end to the foreign wars. They want an economic policy that isn't rigged for the investor class. The least we can do is listen and say we hear your anger. We hear your frustration. It is completely justified. We have had a political class that has failed us. We are doing our best to change. Not taking corporate money is a step-- a small but significant step -in that direction."

The "Augean Stables" — How Corruption Has Amended the Constitution

Hercules starting to clean a 1,000-cattle stable that hadn't been emptied in 30 years. Like the U.S. government, says Gary Hart. (Hercules quickly gives up on the shovel.)

by Gaius Publius

Not something you don't already know if you're a regular reader of these pages, but it's becoming more and more mainstream to deliver a radical* analysis of government in the U.S. That's why I found the following so interesting — the source is former U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. And believe me, this is a radical analysis.

But first, two definitions. The Augean Stables is a reference to the Fifth Labor of Hercules, one of the Twelve (click to read the context). The task was to clean the king's stables, which housed 1,000 cattle and which hadn't been cleaned in 30 years, the life of the man who owned it. Cleaned of what? Surely you know:

The fifth Labour of Heracles (Hercules in Latin) was to clean the Augean (/ɔːˈdʒiːən/) stables. Eurystheus [the king assigning the tasks to Hercules] intended this assignment both as humiliating (rather than impressive, like the previous labours) and as impossible, since the livestock were divinely healthy (immortal) and therefore produced an enormous quantity of dung (ἡ ὄνθος). These stables had not been cleaned in over 30 years, and over 1,000 cattle lived there. However, Heracles succeeded by rerouting the rivers Alpheus and Peneus to wash out the filth.

The second definition — corruption. Most think of corruption as an outcome that's perverted for the sake of money. Hart, correctly, says, Not so:

From Plato and Aristotle forward, corruption was meant to describe actions and decisions that put a narrow, special, or personal interest ahead of the interest of the public or commonwealth. Corruption did not have to stoop to money under the table, vote buying, or even renting out the Lincoln bedroom. In the governing of a republic, corruption was self-interest placed above the interest of all—the public interest.

Corruption is "self-interest placed above the interest of all," or in some cases, one's legal or contractual obligation. Thus, for example, some college football referees and refereeing groups are obviously corrupt. When Conference A plays Conference B using Conference B's referees, and year after year the bad calls go Conference B's way, especially with the game on the line, the referees are corrupt.

Are they betraying their obligation for money? No, likely not. Are they betraying their obligation in order to satisfy animus against Conference A, or to make sure the "home teams" win? That's an obvious explanation, and by this definition (and mine), that's corrupt.

Or take another situation. By this definition, the Supreme Court since at least 2000 and likely before has acted corruptly, if the definition is "self-interest placed above the interest of all." No legal analysis of Bush v. Gore passes the "upholds the interest of all" test — the Republicans on the Court simply put a Republican (the home team candidate) in the White House because they could. Nor do the major decisions around money and corporate rights, like Citizens United or even Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 Burger Court decision that lifted restrictions on campaign contributions, and its follow-up, First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti, whose majority opinion was authored by Lewis Powell, of the infamous Powell memo.

By this definition — perverting an outcome to benefit a group in which one has a personal interest — the Supreme Court acted corruptly in the cases above. Likely corrupt in Buckley, Citizens United, and First National Bank of Boston. Certainly corrupt in Bush v. Gore, where Republican justices favored a Republican candidate for president over a Democratic one on no defensible grounds. They weren't metaphorically "corrupt," with the quotes. They were corrupt by definition.

Gary Hart on the Systemic Corruption of the U.S. Government

Hart's piece is an interesting Time magazine essay, and also a long section from his new book, The Republic of Conscience (I don't support Amazon, so no Amazon link). I don't want to quote a ton of it, since its main argument is likely familiar to you. But he makes a systemic point in a way that seems original; that is, he puts pieces together to make a bigger whole than most of us were aware of. For example, it's likely that the "army of lobbyists" we all hate aren't a perversion of government — they are government.

A few notable sections (all emphasis mine):

Gary Hart: America’s Founding Principles Are in Danger of Corruption

Welcome to the age of vanity politics and campaigns-for-hire. What would our founders make of this nightmare?

Four qualities have distinguished republican government from ancient Athens forward: the sovereignty of the people; a sense of the common good; government dedicated to the commonwealth; and resistance to corruption. Measured against the standards established for republics from ancient times, the American Republic is massively corrupt.

From Plato and Aristotle forward, corruption was meant to describe actions and decisions that put a narrow, special, or personal interest ahead of the interest of the public or commonwealth. Corruption did not have to stoop to money under the table, vote buying, or even renting out the Lincoln bedroom. In the governing of a republic, corruption was self-interest placed above the interest of all—the public interest.

By that standard, can anyone seriously doubt that our republic, our government, is corrupt? There have been Teapot Domes and financial scandals of one kind or another throughout our nation’s history. There has never been a time, however, when the government of the United States was so perversely and systematically dedicated to special interests, earmarks, side deals, log-rolling, vote-trading, and sweetheart deals of one kind or another.

What brought us to this? A sinister system combining staggering campaign costs, political contributions, political action committees, special interest payments for access, and, most of all, the rise of the lobbying class.

Worst of all, the army of lobbyists that started relatively small in the mid-twentieth century has now grown to big battalions of law firms and lobbying firms of the right, left, and an amalgam of both. And that gargantuan, if not reptilian, industry now takes on board former members of the House and the Senate and their personal and committee staffs. And they are all getting fabulously rich.

Gargantuan numbers of lobbyists with gargantuan amounts of money. There's a point where corruption of government on that scale systemically changes government itself.

The "Big Three" Lobbying Conglomerates Are a "Fourth Branch of Government"

For Hart, the movement of office-holders and their staffs between lobbying firms and government is not a "revolving door" to government; that revolving door is government. Hart makes his point by looking at the lobbying firm WPP, the largest of three giant lobbying conglomerates. WPP isn't just a lobbying firm, it's an international conglomerate of firms that wields enormous power and wealth.

Consider — WPP has been eating up lobbying firms the way Macy's, Inc. eats department stores or Darden eats restaurant chains. At some point, you simply own the business you're in, and the size of your operation changes the nature of the game itself.

Hart on how lobbying at this scale changes our government:

[T]he largest [lobbying "predator" (his term)] by far is WPP (originally called Wire and Plastic Products; is there a metaphor here?), which has its headquarters in London and more than 150,000 employees in 2,500 offices spread around 107 countries. It, together with one or two conglomerating competitors, represents a fourth branch of government, vacuuming up former senators and House members and their spouses and families, key committee staff, former senior administration officials of both parties and several administrations, and ambassadors, diplomats, and retired senior military officers.

WPP has swallowed giant public relations, advertising, and lobbying outfits such as Hill & Knowlton and BursonMarsteller, along with dozens of smaller members of the highly lucrative special interest and influence-manipulation world. Close behind WPP is the Orwellian-named Omnicom Group and another converger vaguely called the Interpublic Group of Companies. According to Mr. Edsall, WPP had billings last year of $72.3 billion, larger than the budgets of quite a number of countries.

With a budget so astronomical, think how much good WPP can do in the campaign finance arena, especially since the Citizens United decision. The possibilities are almost limitless. Why pay for a senator or congresswoman here or there when you can buy an entire committee? Think of the banks that can be bailed out, the range of elaborate weapons systems that can be sold to the government, the protection from congressional scrutiny that can be paid for, the economic policies that can be manipulated.

The lobbying business is no longer about votes up or down on particular measures that may emerge in Congress or policies made in the White House. It is about setting agendas, deciding what should and should not be brought up for hearings and legislation. We have gone way beyond mere vote buying now. The converging Influence World represents nothing less than an unofficial but enormously powerful fourth branch of government.

To whom is this branch of government accountable? Who sets the agenda for its rising army of influence marketers? How easy will it be to not only go from office to a lucrative lobbying job but, more important, from lucrative lobbying job to holding office?

When one lobbying firm has billings of nearly $75 billion, you can "buy committees," not just individual votes; and you can "set agendas" rather than just pass laws.

Now consider that "revolving door" again. Is that a door out of government and back into it, or is it a door into another branch of government, one where policy decisions also get made?

Does an International Lobbying Firm Serve One Nation's Interest or Many?

And a final question: If the lobbying firm is international, with international clients and governmental "targets," are its interests "American" in any way? If not, how compromised are those who take its money?

Where are its [WPP's] loyalties if it is manipulating and influencing governments around the world? Other than as a trough of money of gigantic proportions, how does it view the government of the United States?

Why would not WPP act to modify the laws of one country to serve the interests of clients in another? And I'll ask again, are those who take its money compromised by the international goals of these mega-firms?

"Purchasing" Candidates and Office-Holders — Even Former Senators Are Saying It

Just as "corruption" is not a metaphor when it comes to decisions like Bush v. Gore, "buying" and "sponsoring" candidates and office-holders — the way soap is bought and race cars are sponsored — is not a metaphor, at least according to Hart:

The advent of legalized corruption launched by the Supreme Court empowers the superrich to fund their own presidential and congressional campaigns as pet projects, to foster pet policies, and to represent pet political enclaves. You have a billion, or even several hundred million, then purchase a candidate from the endless reserve bench of minor politicians and make him or her a star, a mouthpiece for any cause or purpose however questionable, and that candidate will mouth your script in endless political debates and through as many television spots as you are willing to pay for. All legal now. ...

The five prevailing Supreme Court justices, holding that a legal entity called a corporation has First Amendment rights of free speech, might at least have required the bought-and-paid-for candidates to wear sponsor labels on their suits as stock-car drivers do. Though, for the time being, sponsored candidates will not be openly promoted by Exxon-Mobil or the Stardust Resort and Casino but by phony “committees for good government” smokescreens.

I think he's literally correct. In the old days, it didn't take much money to wholly own a back-bench Congress person from coal country, say, and one coal company, if big enough, could do it. But the major office-holders had to be funded by competing interests. Now you can tag several  presidential candidates, at least on the Republican side, with the single name of their "benefactor."

For example:

• Marco Rubio — Sponsored by Norman Braman & (he hopes) Sheldon Adelson
• Scott Walker — Sponsored by the Koch Brothers
• Ted Cruz — Sponsored by hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer
• Rick Santorum — Sponsored by Foster Friess
• Rand Paul — Sponsored by [this slot available]

And so on. Joe Biden's been called the "Senator from MBNA," and Chuck Schumer the "Senator from Wall Street." Seems right. In cases of such complete "sponsorship" I agree that wearing of badges should be required. Partial sponsorship could be handled like NASCAR jackets:

But this treats a serious problem too lightly. Remember, I said this was a radical analysis. In fact, by this practice we're actually amending the Constitution — not the one as written; the one as practiced.

The Other Way to Amend the Constitution

All constitutions and all systems of laws are amended in two ways, by formal agreement (legal process) and by informal agreement. In England, the second ways is in fact the primary way their "constitution" is amended.

In the U.S., if both parties enforce a law in the same way, even though that way deviates from the way the law is written, the law is amended until forced back to its original form in practice. Thus:

▪ We have, by bipartisan agreement, revoked the Fourth Amendment. Neither party enforces it, so it's gone. Do you think you'll see it enforced in your lifetime? It's possible. Is that likely, do you think, without another radical change?

▪ We have changed the "rule of law" to add a "circle of immunity" amendment. It started with Nixon — the circle of "who cannot be prosecuted" included one person, the president. That was granted him by Gerald Ford's pardon with no objection from Congress and confirmed by Obama's refusal to indict Bush II for violating laws against torture. (Can you see Obama being indicted by anyone for extrajudicial murder, assassination really, of Americans, some mere propagandists and some completely innocent?)

Under Reagan–Bush I that circle expanded to include their top cabinet officers, like Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger. Under Bush II–Obama it includes all money-center bankers and former senators (and outright crooks) like Jon Corzine.

▪ Regarding that parenthetical comment about Obama and his drone kills above, we've now amended the trial-by-jury section of the Sixth Amendment to allow executive assassination, death by executive fiat. It just awaits a Republican president to confirm it by following suit, but Congress has already approved.

And so on. Now we can add one more:

▪ The mega-lobbying firms, with their combined more-than-$100 billion annual budget, are a fourth branch of government. Policy is set in these firms and passed to Congress and the executive branch to "discuss." Once discussed and passed, those who passed these policies then return to the firms to set more policy — and receive what's often the biggest payoff of their lifetime.

Was TPP drafted first in these mega-firms before being negotiated between nations? There aren't many other ways to convene 600 lobbyists (pdf).

Cleaning the Augean Stables

Back to Hart's essay and where we started, with the Augean Stables. The way out of this mess, if Greek myth is any indicator, is not incremental. You can't shovel your way out. Remember, that's a 1,000-cattle stable, and in our case a literal army of lobbyists. With a mere shovel, we'd be buried to our necks before the fourth toss of filth out the window.

How did Hercules clean his stable? He diverted a river and ran the whole mess out to sea in one pass. There's a word for that equivalent in government life — radical change, and it comes in several forms.

I recommend the peaceful kind, like backing this guy for president. Click to support; you can adjust the split at the link.

* Did you know that "radical" means "going to the root or source"?

Radically yours,

GP

How Can You Tell If A Candidate Is A Progressive Or Not?

DINO Maria Gutzeit has already proven how awful she is

Sometimes candidates lie about where they are politically to get support. Two of the worst Blue Dogs I ever had the misfortune to see in action-- Chris Carney (PA) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)-- swore to me on the phone before they were elected that they were dedicated progressives. Both are bare-faced liars. Probably the only way to be sure is to watch the voting records after the election. 

A handful of candidates are movement progressives, and you have nothing to worry about. When Bernie Sanders ran, when Alan Grayson ran, when Donna Edwards ran, they had already been toiling in our fields and they didn't have to do a lot to prove their progressive credentials; they live them. But they are the exception, not the rule. And with Beltway Establishment leaders like Chuck Schumer, Jon Tester and Steve Israel doing everything in their power to discourage progressives from even running for Congress, many candidates think they have to run as a conservative or even as a Republican-lite to get elected, a theme always encouraged and amplified by Schumer, Israel and Tester.

Yesterday a candidate already endorsed by Blue America, Lou Vince, sent out a letter to CA-25 residents. He has to face a conservative Democrat, Maria Gutzeit, and a Tea Party Republican, Steve Knight, and he appears to be leaving the conservative base for the two of them to split up. He made no bones about where he stands on the issues-- a huge no-no for DINOs and for the DCCC.

"As a Congressman," he wrote, "I will be committed to…"

• Protecting Social Security and Medicare
• Making college affordable
• Raising the minimum wage
• Reforming the banking system to protect our economy
• Fighting against unfair trade deals
• Rebuilding our nation’s crumbling infrastructure
• Protecting our local environment and passing legislation to curb climate change
• Fighting for our civil liberties and civil rights
• Protecting marriage equality and a woman’s right to choose

You look at that list of priorities Vince is putting forth and you have to say "Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party" or, as Howard Dean put it several years ago, "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." The DCCC has been screwing up Democrats' chances to win this recently blue-leaning district for several cycles. And even though CA-25 would be one of the best pick-up opportunities for a Democrat, though not for a DINO like Gutzeit, the DCCC doesn't seem very interested at all.

We're trying to help Lou Vince, not just a progressive but a former marine and LAPD officer, win the seat. If you want to help-- and I hope you do-- please take a look at this page.

If you're a frequent reader here, you know how we feel about John Kline, the reactionary Republican from MN-02, a district just south of the Twin Cities. If you just wandered in here accidentally but still want to know something about Kline... here you go.

Yes, he's truly that horrific. Angie Craig is one of two Democrats seeking the DFL nomination to take on Kline. I asked a friend from South St. Paul, much of which is part of the district, if Angie is a progressive. He hemmed and hawed a little bit. "She is on all the basic issues," he told me. "But she's not Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson or Keith Ellison. The good news-- someone who grew up as a lesbian in the South, is never going to be a Blue Dog." Well... that's not really the case. Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ) and Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), indisputably two of the absolute worst DINOs in Congress, try tricking people-- primarily donors-- into thinking they're progressive and offer their gayness as proof. It does't prove anything except which gender they prefer to have sex with. So I knew I had to dig a little deeper.

Angie's official announcement statement offers some clues:

As someone who grew up in a trailer park and worked my way to the boardroom, I know that every family has potential and that every family deserves a chance to succeed. In Congress, I will work to protect public education, make college more affordable, ensure businesses have the tools they need to grow and create jobs, and keep our promises to our seniors and those nearing retirement age. John Kline has had his chance to put middle class families first and he has failed. We deserve better.

Nothing wrong with any of that. Encouraging, in fact. But does it predict how she'll vote on the next TPP? I don't think it does. So... I'm going to talk to her on the phone and see what I can find out about how she thinks and how she makes decisions. And... I'll let you know. But one way or the other, this is going to be an important race. Obama won the district both times he ran, and both Minnesota senators, centrist Amy Klobuchar and progressive Al Franken, won the district in their own elections. If the Democrats run an actual Democrat-- and not some more of that DINO garbage the DCCC has been recruiting all over the map-- MN-02 can be blue again. But not with a Blue Dog or New Dem, with a progressive Democrat who backs ideas like this:




UPDATE: Democrats Are Very Thankful And Very Proud Today

After this morning's Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality was handed down (on which Ken will have more to say later today), the aforementioned Angie Craig, like many candidates, expressed her gratitude and her joy. "When I came out in a small Arkansas town in 1989, I couldn’t imagine that I would live to see this day. I’ve watched as countless families, all over the country, struggle for the same recognition that my wife Cheryl, our four children, and I were fortunate to be afforded in Minnesota. While today is a day for celebration, we can’t forget there is still more to do to stop discrimination against the entire LGBT community in areas such as employment and housing, just to name a couple... There are still millions in the LGBT community across the country who can still be fired just because of who they are – and there is no excuse for that. I worked to implement our non-discrimination policy at St. Jude, and I can tell you first hand that the effects were only positive. Non-discrimination should be the law of the land, and I’m ready to lead that fight in Congress. We can’t let the work ahead blind us to the fact that this is the most significant milestone in the LGBT community’s long journey to true equality under the law."


AMAZING BUT TRUE: The Supreme Court looks into the
Constitution and finds some rights for people who aren't rich

As Howie notes above, I'll be poking around today's decision at 3pm PT/6pm ET. -- Ken

#

Democratic Elites Don’t Want to Hear It, But "Hillary Clinton’s In Trouble"

The famous "Yes We Can" theme, just before its conversion to "No I Won't." Why is this painful to watch? Six years of broken promises and a party-wide TPP cave by its leaders have rebranded Democrats for a generation.

by Gaius Publius

TPP and Fast Track may be closing down the show and heading home. We may (or may not) know its fate very soon. Rather than make a prediction, though — I have one, in case you're wondering, and my Twitter followers have heard it — let's go broader this time.

Ever since Bill Clinton, Al From and the DLC remade the Democratic Party into the "other party of money," there's been a train wreck just waiting to happen. It's taken a long time for voters, the people who keep Democrats in elected office, to start to figure out the betrayal that always awaits them. I think the 2008 burst of "Yes We Can" enthusiasm — genuine, heartfelt, a true Children's Crusade of newfound innocence — was that last golden opportunity for the Party to rescue itself from the grip of leaders who only pretend to have its voters' interests at heart. Yes, they care about some issues, but even then, only when forced, and only when the polls are running in their favor.

That "Children's Crusade of newfound innocence" I mentioned was not the innocence of children who believe that impossible unicorns exist. It's the adult suspension of belief that all Democrats would ultimately sell them out; it's one last hope (to coin a phrase) that at least one Democratic leader would actually act in their interests, just this once.

But Nancy Pelosi's 2006 "impeachment is off the table" was a harbinger. Then came Candidate Obama's 2008 betrayal of his FISA promise; his appointment of Robert Rubin–Wall Street regulars to his cabinet; his calculated and deliberate sellout of the ACA public option, using his friends in the Senate to screw his enemies in the House, meaning progressives; his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's contempt for those same progressives — and we're not even out of year one.

And now, TPP, the largest "trade" deal in a generation, the "largest in the history of commerce" as one writer put it — and the leaders of the Democratic Party, even Nancy Pelosi, are dialing for donor dollars while dancing to fool the base.

So you see what I mean by "going broader." This moment connects not just to the Fast Track votes, the TPP votes (if they come), the TISA votes (which, if they come, will change labor and wages in this country forever). It connects to the Democratic Party "brand," to the 2016 races (all up and down the ticket) and ... Hillary Clinton.

There's no better person to help us along than Bill Curry, writing at Salon. Trade and TPP is not his starting point, but it can be ours. Curry writes (my emphasis throughout):

Politicians have always ducked tough issues, but today’s Democrats are the worst. When the TPP came before the House, enough Democrats played it cute to leave the outcome in doubt till the very end. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi didn’t tip her hand until just before the vote. Many who voted no never said exactly why. Some want to curb currency manipulation. Some oppose the fast track process, others the secret tribunals or the intellectual property rules that actually restrain competition. If the caucus as a whole has a bottom line, no one knows what it is.

The TPP is a mystery because our leaders wish it so. We don’t know what’s in it because our president won’t let us read it, and not out of respect for precedent or protocol. George W. Bush showed us drafts of his trade agreements. We’re negotiating one right now with Europe, and Europeans get to read those drafts. If a comma gets cut from the TPP, hundreds of corporate lobbyists know in an instant. The only people who don’t know are the American people — and that’s only because our president thinks our knowing would ruin everything.

The process by which Congress considers the TPP is confusing in itself. The pact is still being negotiated by the 12 nations who’d be parties to it. The fight now is over legislation meant to grease the skids for it when it finally arrives. At issue are trade promotion authority or TPA — the ‘fast track’ by which Congress vows not to amend or filibuster a trade agreement it hasn’t even read – and trade adjustment assistance or TAA, which gives benefits (money, health insurance, job training) to workers who can prove to the federal government that they lost their jobs due to trade. Signed into law by John Kennedy, expanded by Bill Clinton and extended by George W. Bush, the half-century old program is set to expire in September. The bills now before Congress would keep it alive another six years.

But the Senate passed a united bill that yoked Fast Track and Trade Assistance (TPA + TAA) as a single bill; the House split the bills and passed only half, resulting in temporary defeat for the pro-corporatists.

The press called the June 12 votes a huge win for labor and a “humiliating defeat” (the Washington Post) for Obama. Reading such stories one might think fast track or even the TPP itself had suffered a crushing blow. Some on the left even called it historic. ...

[But] I wouldn’t pop any corks quite yet. For the first time ever Congress hit the pause button on globalization, but that’s all it did. House Dems didn’t suddenly lurch left; they just did what they always do. In 1993 they voted no on NAFTA. In 2002 they voted against the Iraq War. In 2010 they passed an Obamacare bill with a public option. But they can’t ignore their president or their donors forever. In 2008 they resisted Bush’s bailout but finally gave in to Obama and Wall Street. Republicans held firm, thus setting in motion the Tea Party and the sad, sorry debacle of 2010.

On Thursday the Republicans did what any fool could have predicted: they passed a new rule and sent the TPA to the Senate sans worker assistance. We don’t know what will happen next, but we do know fast track has already passed both houses of Congress once. In the end, Obama, Boehner, McConnell and their global capital partners will likely get their way, but June 12 may yet prove historic.

Democrats just "did what they always do" — they attempted the right thing, then surrendered to party leadership. Which brings us to the party split, a chasm really, and open rebellion, this time by the voters.

The Peasants Are Rebelling and the Leaders Aren't Listening

Curry on how all this plays with the base:

Krugman’s right: there’s a rumbling out there, but most Democrats are a long way from hearing it, let alone joining in. If House Dems stand firm, they too may plant the seeds of a grass-roots movement. Much of their party will resist. Every political party is really many parties. The Democrats’ presidential, Senate, governors’ and donors’ parties all line up with global capital. Even in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is a staunch ‘free trader’ and Pelosi herself spent the week before the vote quietly imploring her caucus to swallow the poison pill.

No one knows where scores of Democrats really stand. Both parties are caught in a crossfire between their donors and their base. Republican voters are suspicious of the TPP and hate fast track, mostly because they hate Obama. Democratic voters hate fast track but accept the TPP, mostly because they love Obama. Republicans in Congress are civil because they can’t bash Democrats for doing what their base wishes they would do. Democrats in Congress are quiet because they don’t want their donors to think they mean what they say — and don’t know when someone may offer them something to take one for the team by switching sides.

As a party, the Democrats are obviously lost, and their leaders are swimming in donor-funded obfuscation:

This week I told two liberal friends that Pelosi is trying to find “a path to yes on fast track.” (Her words) Both said Pelosi and Clinton had broken with Obama, are moving left and now oppose the deal. In terms of strategy and message it was true — all except the part about Clinton and Pelosi opposing the deal.

There's much about Clinton and Pelosi pretending to care about workers, when all they want is for the deal to be done without their fingerprints on it. That obviously applies to Pelosi. Curry says that's equally true of Clinton.

Clinton Is Trying to Run Obama-2008

In a fine catch, Curry says this:

Clinton’s trade talk is of a piece with her entire 2016 campaign. It’s also of a piece with Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Clinton insiders make no secret of her desire to emulate him. Obama’s 2008 campaign had three hallmarks. One was its fundraising. Obama was the first Democratic presidential campaign to outraise a Republican on Wall Street and the first of either party to crack the code of Internet fundraising. The second was its massive, web-driven, volunteer effort, probably the biggest of any presidential campaign in history.

The third was its message, at once fiercely populist and reassuringly centrist — and vague. Much of it came from chief strategist David Axelrod who opined that for too long Democrats had been mired down in issues. His campaigns were famous for selling personalities rather than platforms, for finding ways to reconcile our conflicts in the biographies of his candidates. It worked for Obama. “Yes we can,” audiences called out. “Do what?” few bothered to ask, or thought they had to.

For Curry, that won't work twice. He makes a fine case, but the reasoning is obvious as well. Can she make a Larry Summers, say, her Secretary of Treasury and claim the Piketty mantle of "Yes I Care" about wealth and inequality? Obviously not.

Hillary Clinton "Is in Trouble"

Which brings us to 2016 and the Democratic candidate for president:

Democratic elites don’t want to hear it but Hillary Clinton’s in trouble. It isn’t in all the data yet though you can find it if you look.  In a straw poll taken in early June at a Wisconsin Democratic convention she edged out Bernie Sanders by just 8 points, 49% to 41%. In a poll of N.H. primary voters this week she beat Sanders by 41% to 31%. An Ohio poll had her in a dead heat with the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. If Sanders can poll 40% in a Wisconsin straw poll in June he can do it [in] an Iowa caucus in January. Imagine a Hillary Clinton who just lost Iowa and New Hampshire to Bernie Sanders. It’s still hard to picture but it gets easier every day.

Which brings me back to my point — this is the most important election in a generation, 1968-important in its possibilities. One battle at a time, starting with the Democratic primary. Yes We Can put a real progressive in the White House, if one will run. Sanders is running. And if he gets the big chair, he won't be Mr. "No I Won't" but Mr. "You Bet I Will."

GP

Wanna run for president? The Koch brothers have some questions for you, so get a pencil

by Ken

There seems pretty general awareness -- certainly among the 2016 presidential wannabes -- that the Koch brothers, Charles and David, are likely to play a major role in arbitrating among the Republican contenders, with a view to getting the biggest bang for the presidential portion of the $889 million they and their network of like-minded contributors are already poised to dump into the 2016 elections. The Washington Post's James Hohmann has gotten hold of a four-section, 25-question "survey" distributed Thursday to "all of the declared and likely presidential candidates" by Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, "the funding arm of the political network" backed by the Kochs.

For his piece, "Scoop: 25 questions the Koch brothers want every 2016 candidate to answer," James got confirmation of the authenticity of the four-page document, distributed to Democratic as well as Republican would-be candidates, from Freedom Partners spokesman James Davis, who "said the responses will be used to educate both members and the public at-large."

According to the introductory text, we learn from James, “The questions in this survey represent issues prioritized by our members.” It might have been interesting to know more about that "introductory text," but we do get the questions themselves. I was really curious about them, so let's go straight there.

OK, OK, HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS

Section 1: Expanding Opportunity for Everyone

Question #1: What specific policies would your administration pursue to create greater opportunity for all Americans?
Question #2: Do you believe too many activities are criminalized in America and, as a result, too many people are incarcerated? What criminal justice reforms would you support?
Question #3: Do you believe current federal prohibitions and policies used to fight drug abuse are working? If not, what would you change?
Question #4: Do you believe federal spending on education is insufficient?
Question #5: Do you believe some government programs or policies present barriers to opportunity for the poorest Americans? If so, which are the most destructive?
Question #6: How would your administration address rising health care costs?
Question #7: If repealed by the Supreme Court, would you support extending federal subsidies for health insurance in states without exchanges, even if it would extend individual and employer mandates?

Section 2: Combating Cronyism and Corporate Welfare

Question #8: Do you agree government mandates and subsidies distort the economy and allow certain individuals and corporations to profit at the expense of others?
Question #9: Do you support reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank?
Question #10: Do you support federal agricultural subsidies?
Question #11: Do you believe the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was necessary?
Question #12: Do you support the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)?
Question #13: Should tax reform eliminate all preferential treatment and credits for individuals, industries and activities in order to lower marginal tax rates?

Section 3: Restoring Fiscal Sustainability

Question #14: What is your plan to deal with the $18 trillion national debt and the more than $200 trillion unfunded liability burden facing the U.S.?
Question #15: As president, would you uphold the overall discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act of 2011?
Question #16: Do you believe the debt limit should be used to leverage federal spending reductions?
Question #17: Do you support increasing tax revenue in order to pay for infrastructure spending?
Question #18: Do you support Social Security and Medicare reform that would increase the age of eligibility and reduce benefits for wealthier retirees?
Question #19: Do you support expanding Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act?
Question #20: Do you support capping federal spending on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by allowing states to control those funds in the form of federal grants?
Question #21: Do you support targeted federal spending or limited tax benefits to help spur economic growth within a particular industry or geographic area?

Section 4: Shaping Foreign Policy

Question #22: What criteria would you use to determine when to deploy U.S. armed forces overseas? For instance, should the military be used to address humanitarian crises abroad?
Question #23: Do you believe military intervention in Libya made America safer? Should the U.S. intervene in Syria and/or Ukraine?
Question #24: Should the U.S. use any means necessary to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon even if it required the use of ground forces?
Question #25: Can current military spending be reduced without compromising national security?

One immediate point to note, though James notes it rather far down in his survey of the questionnaire, is that it "is silent on social issues, such as gay marriage and abortion, which are important to many Republican primary voters but much less so to Koch network participants."

As for the questions that are included, perhaps surprisingly, many -- maybe most -- seem pretty reasonable. "How would your administration address rising health care costs?," for example, or "Do you believe military intervention in Libya made America safer? Should the U.S. intervene in Syria and/or Ukraine?" -- these seem like questions we'd like to have answered by everyone seeking to occupy the Oval Office.

Of course the lurking evil isn't in the questions, but in the answer the Kochs are looking for. You'd have to be a pretty out-of-it GOP presidential wannabe to mistake a leading question like "Do you support Social Security and Medicare reform that would increase the age of eligibility and reduce benefits for wealthier retirees?" Only a chump would be fooled by seeing the phrases "reduce benefits" and "for wealthier" butted up against each other, and think maybe this is something he shouldn't be supporting. But answer "no" to this one and you'll likely be sent to knock on George Soros's door. One suspects the same fate awaits anyone who says "yes" to "Do you support increasing tax revenue in order to pay for infrastructure spending?"

But then, the "Restoring Fiscal Sustainability" section -- about which James doesn't seem to have anything to say -- is the most blatantly ideological of the questionnaire's four, although especially in the "Combating Cronyism and Corporate Welfare" section the correct answers are clearer if you know the questioners' slant. For these "do you support" questions you should be in head-shaking mode. James points out that the Kochs have a big hate for the Export-Import bank, and not much love for the other listed programs, like the federal renewable fuel standard, "which is big in Iowa but free-market devotees vigorously oppose." ("Do you support federal agricultural subsidies?" might not seem an easy question to answer with a simple "yes" or "no," and while these are presumably "essay"-type rather than "true-false" questions, it's not clear that the people reading the answers are terribly open to nuance.)

I suppose there are generous clues to correct answers elsewhere, for example: "Do you believe some government programs or policies present barriers to opportunity for the poorest Americans? If so, which are the most destructive?" But again, it helps to know who you're dealing with. "The brothers care passionately about criminal justice reform," he notes, "and have publicly complained that too many Americans are in jail. So it’s not a surprise that the candidates are asked to weigh in about the war on drugs."

James was surprised enough by the "heavy dose of foreign policy inquiries" to seek enlightenment.

Freedom Partners wants the candidates to spell out criteria for deploying U.S. troops, whether the U.S. should intervene in Syria and Ukraine, and how far the president should be willing to go in order to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and whether defense spending can be cut.

Asked about these foreign policy questions, Davis explained: “We live in a global marketplace and are $18 trillion in debt; now more than ever, our economy, our jobs and opportunities for countless Americans are impacted by U.S. foreign policy decisions.”

It may be interesting to see what we ever hear of the candidate responses, bearing in mind James Davis's statement to James that "the responses will be used to educate both members and the public at-large."

#

Corporations Paid a (Very Small) Bundle to U.S. Senators to Fast-Track the TPP Bill

Senators asking big spenders at Monsanto to pony up

by Gaius Publius

While we're waiting for the Fast Track drama to deliver its next non-final event, I thought I'd offer some background. The big money behind the scenes is paying a lot to get this bill past the goal line (but as you'll see, not a whole lot).

The Guardian offers this report (my emphasis):

Here’s how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill

A decade in the making, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is reaching its climax and as Congress hotly debates the biggest trade deal in a generation, its backers have turned on the cash spigot in the hopes of getting it passed.

“We’re very much in the endgame,” US trade representative Michael Froman told reporters over the weekend at a meeting of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum on the resort island of Boracay. His comments came days after TPP passed another crucial vote in the Senate.

That vote, to give Barack Obama the authority to speed the bill through Congress, comes as the president’s own supporters, senior economists and a host of activists have lobbied against a pact they argue will favor big business but harm US jobs, fail to secure better conditions for workers overseas and undermine free speech online.

Those critics are unlikely to be silenced by an analysis of the sudden flood of money it took to push the pact over its latest hurdle.

Keep in mind that this is just the Senate, and it only includes what's known. Still, some numbers:

The US Senate passed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) – the fast-tracking bill – by a 65-33 margin on 14 May. Last Thursday, the Senate voted 62-38 to bring the debate on TPA to a close.

Those impressive majorities follow months of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing by the world’s most well-heeled multinational corporations with just a handful of holdouts.

Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:

• Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes.
• The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.
• The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors. 

The best dollarocracy money can buy. Or the world's most expensive deliberative body. Or something.

Here are some numbers for individual senators, especially those running for re-election:

The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received.

Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden and seven other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans and handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.

• In just 24 hours, Wyden and five of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Bill Nelson of Florida – caved and voted for fast-track.


• Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them. Bennet, who comes from the more purple state of Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January and March 2015, according to Channing’s research.


• Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana and a Republican from Alaska.


• Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US trade representative, has been one of the loudest proponents of the TPP. (In a comment to the Guardian Portman’s office said: “Senator Portman is not a vocal proponent of TPP - he has said it’s still being negotiated and if and when an agreement is reached he will review it carefully.”) He received $119,700 from 14 different corporations between January and March, most of which comes from donations from Goldman Sachs ($70,600), Pfizer ($15,700), and Procter & Gamble ($12,900). Portman is expected to run against former Ohio governor Ted Strickland in 2016 in one of the most politically competitive states in the country.


• Seven Republicans who voted “yea” to fast-track and are also running for re-election next year cleaned up between January and March. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia received $102,500 in corporate contributions. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, best known for proposing a Monsanto-written bill in 2013 that became known as the Monsanto Protection Act, received $77,900 – $13,500 of which came from Monsanto.


• Arizona senator and former presidential candidate John McCain received $51,700 in the first quarter of 2015. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina received $60,000 in corporate donations. Eighty-one-year-old senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is running for his seventh Senate term, received $35,000. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who will be running for his first full six-year term in 2016, received $67,500 from pro-TPP corporations.

Stunning. Blatant. Yet if you look at the dollars paid and compare that to the "take" each of these corporations — Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and others — would realize from not just TPP, but TTIP and TISA, the trade-in-services agreement, it's a pittance. Pennies on the dollar. Low by orders of magnitude.

Our Senators Need an Agent

Let's say thirty massive corporations, including banks and pharmaceuticals, could expect, say, $1 billion in increased revenue over some number of years from these deals — a dollar number I think is off by a lot, by the way. At the top of this piece, the total in combined "donations" mentioned was just over $1 million.

Doing the math, our senators get just 0.1%, or one one-thousandth, of the take. That's nothing. Crumbs. Waiters get more. Agents get more. Our senators, bright as they are, can't negotiate. Perhaps they should ... well ... form a union so they could bargain from strength.

But at the very least, they need an agent. As a public service, I offer myself. I could immediately increase the slice they get by a factor of ten and still not cut into more than 1% of the predators' pie. Monsanto desperately needs Congress to rake in its monster haul. So does Eli Lilly. Come on, senators. They need you more than you need them.

It's time for pro-TPP senators to get what they really deserve. Don't you think?

GP

OMG, you can go to prison for illegal campaign coordination! Who knew?

Hmm, back in February 2011 (the same month that "Hosni Mubarak stepped down from power") Fox Noise couldn't seem to figure out whether Tyler Harber was "President, Wilson Research Strategies" or -- as he was identified in a graphic seconds later -- "VP AND DIRECTOR OF POLITICAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIVISION AT WRS." The following year Elections and Campaigns magazine would name the Republican consultant a "Rising Star."


"It was something I had seen other people do."

-- Republican political operative Tyler Harber, at his sentencing
hearing yesterday in Federal District Court in Richmond (VA)

by Ken

To be sure, with regard to the charges to which he was pleading guilty yesterday, Tyler did admit to Judge Liam O'Grady: "I did it, it was wrong when I did it, and I knew it was wrong when I did it." But then, clearly the federal prosecutors with whom he had arranged his guilty plea had made it clear that he wasn't going to be allowed to use the ever-popular "Everybody Does It" Defense. Nevertheless, he was apparently allowed to point out that he had seen other people do what he did: breaching the legally mandated firewall between a supposedly independent-of-campaigns super PAC and a political campaign (channeling some of the booty to his sister) and fibbing to the FBI about it. (As we all know, the FBI is free to lie to you in an investigation or interrogation, but you can't lie to the FBI.)

One wonders what Supreme Court Justice "Slow Anthony" Kennedy would make of our Tyler, the latest celebrity warrior in the Republican Campaign to Free America of the Menace of Free and Fair Elections (though for reasons we'll go into not acclaimed as a hero by the official Republicans leading the Campaign to Free America of the Menace of Free and Fair Elections), who was sentenced yesterday to two years in the pokey by Judge O'Grady, Slow Anthony's colleague on the federal bench.

It was, as I recall, that esteemed jurist Slow Anthony who disposed of the challenge to the sanctified form of speech known as "money" by declaring that we have no evidence that it causes corruption of our political system. That was, after all, the only reason a jurist of Slow Anthony's esteemed caliber could imagine for even considering interfering with such a divinely ordained right.

The clincher, as I recall the judicial "reasoning," was that elections are not always won by the candidate who spends the most money. This is a conclusion so stupid that you would have thought it landed him on the "tilt" side of the "Too Stupid to Be Entitled to an Opinion" Rule, except that our judicial system doesn't have such a rule.

For that matter, one wonders what our Tyler would think of Justice Slow Anthony if he was told that the justice doesn't believe in the power of money to corrupt our political system. Surely Tyler would wonder why the mean justice was denying the very basis of his life's work. And I don't think it would help to assure Tyler that not only Justice Slow Anthony but his thug-justice colleagues Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito have staked not just their careers but their lives as surely, not to mention a lot more successfully, on their faith in the politically corrupting power of money.


ALAS, POOR TYLER, YOU USED TO BE A "RISING STAR"

Once upon a time, way back in 2012, Tyler Harber was an official "Rising Star" in the campaign world:

TYLER HARBER, 29, REPUBLICAN

V.P. and Director of Political Division, Wilson Research Strategies

Tyler Harber seeks to practice politics with military precision. A native of Knoxville, Tennessee, Harber originally wanted to join the armed services. “I was too short and too slow to go into the military,” he jokes. “So I went into politics.”

He studied military tactics in college and believes that the principles of Sun Tzu and Napoleon are well suited for politics. “I see campaigns as being very based in military strategy,” he says. “Successful campaigns are organized similarly.” Harber grew up in a politically active family in Knoxville. His first race was a city council campaign that lost by about 100 votes. He was then hired by an opponent for the run off. That candidate lost by 34 votes.

“Fortunately,” Harber says, “my results have gotten significantly better since then.” When Harber left Tennessee, he landed at Public Opinion Strategies where he worked for Neil Newhouse, one of the best in the business. Harber says he learned at lot there through his work on high profile races like Sen. Lamar Alexander’s 2002 campaign and other races in the South.

Harber left Public Opinion Strategies in 2007 to lead the political division at Wilson Research Strategies. In that role, he has overseen a rapid expansion of the firm. He expects to have between 350 and 400 political clients by the end of the year. Harber has also begun working overseas, most recently providing counsel to former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.

Whatta guy! Alas, immediately following the above on the website now there's this boldface addendum:

Editorial note: Campaigns and Elections magazine revoked Harber's Rising Star award after he pleaded guilty to coordination of federal campaign contributions in February of 2015.

Oops! "Rising Star" comes crashing back to earth. And apparently he was just too flagrant about it to earn him the solidarity of fellow Republicans working to ensure the corruption of our elections, and the power of money to promote that corruption.


FEBRUARY 2015 WAS NOT A GOOD MONTH FOR TYLER

In the wake of his guilty plea to illegal campaign coordination, fellow Republicans couldn't run away from him fast enough. Virginia local political journalist Betty Bean wrote a piece called "The Rise and Fall of Tyler Harber," in which she told this story:

The last time I heard from Tyler was Nov. 12, 2014, when he sent me an email asking me to come up to D.C. to interview him. He said the Department of Justice was focusing on Republican consultants who were running super PACs:

“I’ve trusted you to write the truth before. Can I pay for you to come up here to meet me once more? One more interview,” he wrote.

“I need an impartial, reasonable, no BS-telling of why I’m going to federal prison for calling Obama a criminal repeatedly on national television. Are you up for a story with as much complexity as the series you wrote about me previously?

“Sooner rather than later. DoJ is pushing hard and I can’t hold them off too much longer. You’ve been the journalist I’ve trusted. Plus this is going to be a national story. I wanted to give you first dibs.

“Let me know. I know this is a very f’d-up request. But in the end of my political career, I’d much prefer that you write my ‘epitaph’ than the Times, Post or any other rag inside the beltway.

“Let me know.

“Best regards, Tyler”

Flabbergasted, I e-mailed him back, asking him to call me. He never responded.

Betty added:

Harber’s situation became brutally clear last week when the news broke that he’d pleaded guilty to illegally coordinating a political campaign with a super PAC he’d created, directing more than $300,000 to the campaign and diverting $138,000 of that to a company run by his mother.

The news brought back a flood of memories. . . .

It may be hard for Tyler to believe, but "calling Obama a criminal repeatedly on national television" doesn't get you indicted. The confusion may be understandable, though, because before Tyler's entanglement with the feds, you would have thought that "illegally coordinating a political campaign with a super PAC" didn't get you indicted either.

Eventually, as we've seen, Tyler seems to have admitted for the record that his legal problems weren't caused by repeatedly calling the president a criminal on national television -- although it's possible that the feds who decided to indict him smiled at the thought that he's that guy. As a matter of fact, as we're going to find out in a moment, Tyler was ratted out to the feds by a fellow Republican.


HOLD ON, ISN'T THIS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FEC'S JOB?

What has generated so much attention ever since Tyler's guilty plea was made known in February is that the Department of Justice was actually indicting someone for playing fast and loose with that mandated separation between super PAC and campaign, especially at a time when Jeb Bush, for one, has been betting that you can be pretty darned flagrant about it and nobody will say "Boo" to  you.

Certainly not the FEC. As the deck on Russ Choma's Mother Jones report on yesterday's sentencing argues: "The Justice Department is stepping in where Federal Election Commission has fallen down on the job." Russ reported:

The Department of Justice scored a victory Friday morning in the fight to rein in the campaign finance Wild West that has come with the rise of super-PACs: A GOP operative in Virginia was sentenced to two years in federal prison for breaking a small, but crucial, campaign finance law in the 2012 election. It's unclear whether this signals a sustained effort by the Justice Department to crack down on campaign finance law violators. But one thing's for sure: it's more than the grid-locked Federal Election Commission has done to enforce the law in this area.

There isn't much that a super PAC can't do under the 2010 Citizens United ruling. These outfits can raise and spend unlimited cash, soliciting funds from individuals and corporations alike. The one thing that can't happen is coordination between a super-PAC and a candidate for elected office. And that's the issue that was at the heart of the Justice Department's case against GOP operative Tyler Harber, once named a "rising star" by Campaigns and Elections magazine (since revoked), who was sentenced to two years in prison for illegal coordination and lying to the FBI.

Since Citizens United, it's been fairly clear that rules against coordination were being short-circuited, if not broken outright. Candidates' political aides have resigned from their campaigns only to resurface at the helm of super PACs supporting that very same candidate; parents and spouses of candidates have created super PACs and pour money in; most significantly, in the run up to 2016, Jeb Bush has merged his campaign with his super PAC, allowing him to raise unlimited amounts of money and hobnob with mega-donors, while hiding behind the excuse that he is not formally a candidate. Campaign finance reformers have cried foul over Bush's use of this loophole, but the reality is no one is likely to do anything about it. The FEC is, for all intents and purposes, putting itself on the bench this election cycle.

But, in lieu of FEC action to curb coordination, the Department of Justice may have sent a powerful message to political operatives across the country with Harber's sentencing today.

In federal court in Richmond, Virginia, Prosecutor Richard Pilger requested that the judge make an example of Harber to send a message to the rest of super PAC world. "The ideal that's really at issue here today is we have a fair campaign finance system," he told the judge, according to the Washington Post.

Harber admitted he was wrong, but the Post reported that he told the judge he didn't break the rules because of greed or power. He said he just got swept away in the post-Citizens United maelstrom of money and boundary-pushing. "I got caught up in what politics has become," he told the judge.

Despite being an up-and-coming operative, Harber was not a particularly powerful one. And he committed his crime while working on behalf of a no-chance congressional candidate who was routed by Democrat Rep. Gerry Connelly. He was no Karl Rove, and he didn't have the backing of a powerful politician or a deep-pocketed donor. In the world of super PACs, Harber was relatively low-hanging fruit.

Harber pleaded guilty to illegal coordination and lying to federal investigators about it, admitting to working as a campaign manager for the candidate and simultaneously playing a secret role in setting up a super PAC that raised $325,000 to run ads on the candidate's behalf. The money came mostly from a New York City real estate developer who had already donated the maximum to the campaign; Harber convinced him to give more to the super PAC, completely erasing any boundary between the campaign and the outside group. On top of that, he diverted more than a third of the super PAC's funds to a firm set up in his mother's name and spent most of that money for personal expenses. Then he threatened someone who confronted him over it and lied to FBI agents who interviewed him about the super PAC's creation.

In other words, he was very easy to prosecute. Even his own party had no love for him (a fellow Republican turned him in). Whether or not the Justice Department can or will take such a hard stance with other super PAC law-breakers—whose infractions may be more subtle—remains to be seen. But, if nothing else, today's sentencing shows that, post-Citizens United, there is still some campaign finance accountability.

Sound the message throughout the land: "There is still some campaign finance accountability." Hey, it's not much, but it's not nothing either, while the FEC slumbers.

#