Supreme Court Decision Invites More Corruption

I believe the government of the United States, as well as its courts, have allowed corporations to become more important than the people of the United States. The evidence? The number of American jobs that have been outsourced overseas. For years, some corporations have been violating their original charter according to American law: to act in the public interest.

So I'm not happy with the Supreme Court decision. In fact, I'm disturbed by the Republicans wildly cheering the decision and I'm disturbed by some of the justifications for the decision. Kevin Drum writes:

There's also the nature of corporations vs. individuals. Corporations do have First Amendment rights, but to call corporations mere "organized groups of people," as Glenn [Greenwald] does, seriously obscures some genuine distinctions. Modern corporations are far more than that, and long precedent recognizes this by allowing them fewer speech rights than individuals. ...it's perfectly defensible to suggest that corporations might also have more restricted rights when it comes to campaign speech.

On the other hand, there's no question that political speech is at the core of the First Amendment. Restricting commercial speech is one thing, but restricting political speech, no matter who's doing it, ought to raise much louder alarm bells.

I respect Kevin for trying to give a nuanced perspective but there are too many major problems. Corporations, far more than our government, dominate our society and there is very little the average citizen can do about it. Even without the Supreme Court decision, corporations have little trouble funding lobbyists, think tanks, friendly university research, sizable honorariums to sympathetic journalists for a one hour speech, and various other gimmicks that reflect the power not of an ''association of individuals," but very powerful people, usually small in number, who control corporations. That is a fact.

I have always despised the argument that the power of corporations is offset by the power of unions. The reality is that the people who control a corporation rarely number more than a hundred to two hundred people. Generally speaking, there might be a hundred thousand shareholders who own 30%, a thousand who own 15% and the rest is owned and controlled by a small number of wealthy people. In no meaningful sense is there democracy in most corporations. In contrast, a union might have 200,000 members, all of whom get one vote.

I don't mind people who have more money than I do. But I do resent when a wealthy person can grab a megaphone and drown out not only my voice but the voice of thousands. I don't really have a problem limiting wealthy people to $23,000 a year for political contributions and $2300 per candidate. Despite the fact that I have to think twice about a $50 contribution or two, I know ways to get my voice heard with the help of others who think along similar lines. If corporate contributions are unlimited, however, we could very easily lose our democracy.

Right wing leaders of the Republican Party love having more power than the rest of us. That's why they cheered the Supreme Court decision so loud. They have a cozy and corrupt relationship with the dark side of American business.

One of the possible outcomes of the Supreme Court decision is that it may open the door to foreign influence by investment in American corporations. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo points out that:

...the recent Supreme Court decision gives foreigners basically an unfettered right to spend money on US elections -- China, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, take your pick. The majority tried to paper over this. But now foreign corporations, foreign individuals and even foreign governments can use corporations as pass-throughs to spend millions or tens of millions of dollars supporting their candidate of choice in a US election.

In fact, why bother with normal corporations? Whether it's foreigners or a bunch of corrupt politicians, corporations law can be used for anything. Even if foreign corporations and foreign investors are forbidden from being involved in American campaigns, there would be nothing to stop them from buying a few American board members glad to take a few bucks and create a corporation whose only purpose is to influence politics. Of course there are wealthy right wingers like Rupert Murdoch who love power and money games far too much. Murdoch already has too much power even without the Supreme Court decision.

For a long time, too many Americans have been more worried about big government than big business. But it's big business that is dismantling the American way of life. The majority on the Supreme Court has just aggravated the problem.

Internet Games and the 2008 Presidential Race

Okay, here's the official site for John Edwards (http://johnedwards.com). It's the only site that matters in this story. Note that if you have a link to One America Committee that John Edwards has been using for two years, it automatically takes you to the official John Edwards site and all the good stuff Edwards and his people have been building are all there; we're just talking about a name change.

The Huffington Post notes that if you try johnedwards08.com you get redirected to Hillary Clinton's website. I have no idea if this is a cute game being played by Hillary's people or whether some Republican out there is trying to play games with the Democrats. We'll soon know (I typed it separately on my url window and got Democrats.com).

I noticed that there's yet another johnedwards08.com site with a slightly different url that takes you to an advertising site, including some John Edwards links. These kind of sites are all over the internet; they depend on people being confused about a person or about a former website whose url they took over when the website was discontinued. To many people, it comes across as a scam.

Once again, here's John Edwards official site (http://www.johnedwards.com).

For the next two years, be patient. Many people think it's cute to play games these days.

Note: Don't be surprised if the false John Edwards sites get fixed by the time you read this. But I plan to keep the story up. It pays to be aware of where the url takes you.

The Growing Cost of Running for President

In recent years, it's become apparent that Republicans can't win unless they outspend the Democrats. Despite the fact that Bush was the incumbent, 2004 was no different. Phillip Sherwill of the British paper, the Telegraph, has the numbers:

It's a full year before the official start of the 2008 presidential campaign but already 20 candidates are thinking of running. To stand any kind of chance, each will have to spend between $50 million and $100 million – and raise at least $1 million every week in 2007

(snip)

Welcome to the latest phase of the unrelenting American political calendar: the coffer-filling season for presidential wannabes. A full year ahead of the opening party caucuses and primaries, prospective contenders are scrambling for the loyalty of wealthy donors and the services of battle-hardened fundraisers.

They have no time to lose as the US embarks on a presidential campaign of staggering cost. The two candidates who go head-to-head in November 2008 are expected to lavish at least $500 million each on their efforts to reach the White House, according to Michael Toner, chairman of the Federal Elections Commission. By contrast, President George W Bush and his Democrat opponent, John Kerry, spent a combined $655 million in 2004 while so-called "527" political campaign groups, named after their relevant tax code, spent more than $100 million.

Add the primary contests and the total campaign costs for 2008 will reach at least $1.5 billion and could rise towards $2 billion. If Michael Bloomberg, Mr Giuliani's successor as mayor of New York, decides to invest his self-made fortune in an independent run, all bets are off on the final tally.

One also has to keep in mind the way politicians find creative ways to raise and spend money under the radar. In 2004, for example, Bush was not shy about using the federal government to make his case and he had a major media ally in Fox News. There was also the tendency of the media to give free air time to the dishonest Swift Boat people who were trying to smear Kerry.

There's nothing wrong, per se, with raising money for a campaign but there's a vast difference between candidates who raise most of their money from hundreds of thousands of small contributors and candidates who raise most of their money by dipping into the pockets of big money. But there are signs that American voters are beginning to ignore candidates who spend a lot of time courting money; instead, voters are beginning to listen again to candidates who seemed concerned about the issues that matter to most Americans. And that is as it ought to be.

The Perils of Conventional Wisdom

One of the things I'm learning about the presidential candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, is that various sources don't seem to spend much time learning who the candidates are. But they're very good at picking the conventional wisdom about candidates. I doubt that does the voters much good.

Here's an example of too much conventional wisdom from Ken Rudin of NPR's Political Junkie:

On paper, this should be a wide-open race for the nomination. But there is suddenly the realization that if your first name is not Hillary or Barack, it will be very difficult to get noticed. And that may be behind Bayh's decision to not run.

The star power of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has never been in question. Instead, the great unknown was who would be the alternative? ...

(snip)

Then, some 10 days after Warner said no, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said on NBC's Meet the Press that he was leaving the door open for a possible run. ...

It might be worth mentioning that the first primary is over a year away. I suspect the voters will be reluctant to annoint someone, or even two people, before the first vote. Of course, the Republicans pretty much did that to George W. Bush seven years ago and look at what a fiasco he's been.



The Center for Media and Democracy offers a rundown on both Democratic and Republican candidates with links to a quick sketch of each candidate. There's some minor omissions (they ignore Mike Gravel) but it's worth a quick look. They say Condoleezza Rice has bailed out; I confess I didn't know that but then I never took her seriously anyway.

Joe Biden, by the way, had a trip to New Hampshire over the weekend and he's all but in the race and expects to make a formal announcement in the next few weeks.

Senator Evan Bayh Not Running for President

It's over a year before the first primary in 2008 and another potential candidate has decided he's not running. Here's the story from Adam Nagourney of The New York Times:

Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, who just two weeks ago took the first steps toward a White House bid in 2008, announced Saturday that he was quitting the race. He said he had concluded that his hopes of winning were too remote to make it worth continuing.

Mr. Bayh’s abrupt withdrawal, which stunned many Democrats, came less than a week after he saw his visit to New Hampshire overshadowed by the crush of attention surrounding a trip there the same day by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

Evan Bayh is relatively young and may have another shot or two in coming years. I have a problem though. Senator Bayh withdrew so early that I have no idea if it's a good thing, or a bad thing, or a pity he didn't have the votes, and so on, because I have very little idea who he is. I hope the Democrats thinking about running stay in and get their voices heard. It's not that difficult anymore. We need a debate in this country and we need people who are going to do more than just carefully triangulate their positions. Right now, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are getting the spotlight but both triangulate far more than necessary; that's not the way to victory in 2008 and I hope for the sake of both these fine candidates that they stop it. And no one should assume that liberals or moderates have a better chance than the next guy. If the potential candidates believe in what they have to say, let's hear them. And let's have no more dropouts until a debate or two.

Let me make a prediction. In 2008, the winner will be the person who does not triangulate.