Author: jxindivisible

Dear Group,

In Part I of Citizens United we covered the background, the personalities, and the Orwellian naming of the group Citizens United. Part II offered an anatomy of the decision, the political underpinning of the Supreme Court’s workings on the case. Today I want to emphasize the importance of the decision in Citizens United v. FEC and its followup. McCain-Feingold (2002) was the last gasp of bipartisan acknowledgement that the influence of extreme wealth in manipulating voters is a problem. It limited electioneering communication in the months preceding elections and capped the amount of money an individual was allowed to donate. John McCain (R-AZ), the Senate Republican whose name is attached to the law, is now one of only a handful of relatively principled, thoughtful Republican Congresspeople remaining…and he is battling brain cancer (and was recently dismissed as “dying” by a White House spokesperson). In the mid aughts (2000-2010), while polls consistently showed that most Americans regardless of party affiliation favored strict election spending limits, an extraordinarily rich minority led by the Koch brothers strategized legal cases that would roll back monetary limits all the way to the Tillman Act 1907 in the days of Theodore Roosevelt. The Kochs and friends counted on voters’ inattention. They invented and funded organizations with deceptive names like Citizens United and SpeechNow, waving the banner of “free speech” to deceive the gullible (of whom I was one at the time).  For decades the mega-wealthy had worked to seat a Libertarian majority on the Supreme Court. With the appointment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court in 2003 and his elevation to Chief Justice in 2005 (both by George W. Bush), the goal was within reach.  Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy, would further the cause of equating money with speech.  Citizens United v FEC (January 21, 2010) proclaimed that anything goes as long as it is an “independent expenditure.” This ruling bypassed nearly all of the restrictions of election finance in the system we have worked with since the early 1970s. That system, the one Citizens United bypassed, is represented in the upper left crescent in the diagram below. It is the system governed under the Federal Elections Commission, the system on which I focused in Cathy’s Coffers !, II, and III. Citizens United furthered the development of a parallel system of mostly unregulated spending in the SuperPAC circle and simultaneously fueled election spending in the non-profit arena. The only requirement is that the spending be “independent,” a requirement that is both a joke and danger. A joke in that no one can really police such a requirement, and a danger in that “independent” money can wrest control of the message from the candidate, helping to put that control in the hands of those with the biggest monetary mouthpiece, the superPACs and certain non-profits. Significantly, Citizens United v. FEC lifted the restriction on corporate and union electioneering contributions (as long as they are “independent”) that had begun with Theodore Roosevelt in 1907. SpeechNow,org v. FEC. SpeechNow.org, another deceptively named astroturf organization, already had a case in line. On March 26, 2010, two months after Citizens United, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used the Citizens United decision as the basis for a ruling on SpeechNow.org v. FEC.  In SpeechNow the Court of Appeals struck down the federal limits on contributions to federal political committees that make only independent expenditures and do not contribute to candidates or political parties. On the other hand, the Court also ruled such independent expenditure committees (=superPACs) must report their donors to the FEC just like regular PACs (the ones in the crescent on the diagram below). “SpeechNow” sounds like another grassroots, citizen supported organization, doesn’t it? Wrong. You can visit its total of just five donors in the 2009-2010 election cycle here at the FEC. David Keating, one of the five, is also the treasurer for the organization…and the Executive Director of the Club For Growth. The Club For Growth is non-profit whose donors are part of the Dark Money world. The Club for Growth has a reputation of attacking Republican lawmakers “from the Right” to keep them in line (and pull the remaining principled Republican rightward). On April 2, 2014, in McCutcheon v. FEC, the same five Libertarian judges on the Supreme Court, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas pushed the money floodgates wide open. In McCutcheon they ruled that aggregate political spending limits are unconstitutional. In the 2011-2012 election cycle the aggregate contribution ceiling on individuals during stood at $46,200 for federal candidates and $70,800 for national parties, or a $117,000 aggregate limit. That limit was established in 1974 and revised upward by McCain-Feingold in 2002. Mr. McCutcheon, an uber-wealthy Alabamian, apparently felt constrained by these limits. The Libertarian Supreme Court majority agreed, saying such limits were an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights. As a result of McCutcheon In the current election cycle (2017-18) more than 19,000 political contributions of a milion dollars or greater have been made. That’s 19 billion dollars…with a b. Republican/Libertarian big money interests have hoodwinked sleepy, distracted voters with populist-sounding names and appeals to “free speech” and pushed the floodgates of campaign spending wide open. Keep to the high ground, Jerry This diagram is from a 2014 interactive article in the NYTimes. It is a great place to start understanding the effect of money in our politics. The limits on contributions are indexed to inflation, so the illustrated limits are now higher, e.g. $5400 can be given directly to a Candidate’s election committee ($2700 for the Primary and $2700 for the General election), and a conventional political action committee (PAC) can receive $5000 from an individual donor.

Dear Group,

It is all about framing, labelling so as to confuse the listener, providing words that light up an image in the listener’s brain. The Republican/Libertarian machine understands this well. Framing is so insidious that the words are soon taken up by the opposition. With each use of the words by a discussant the framer’s point of view is reinforced.. [A recent glaring example I covered is the “Hearing Protection Act.”] For a concise but detailed analysis of framing I strongly encourage reading George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant. (See References below)

Framing is so insidious the listener falls for it unaware. So it was with “Citizens United.” For anyone not fully engaged in the issue, the words “Citizens United” light up a mind frame populated by earnest fellow Americans. How can an issue populated with our fellow citizens be a threat to democracy? Continue reading “Citizens United–Part II”

Dear Group,

McMorris Rodgers is running scared on the issue of Net Neutrality. She should be. She speaks incessantly about repealing regulation. For years she has been unable to say the word “regulation” without appending “job killing” as a prefix. She has reveled in her Party’s use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) early in the Trump presidency to repeal every regulation of the Obama administration the CRA could reach.

So imagine my surprise when I called McMorris Rodgers office to exhort her to vote for a bill that would reinstate the Net Neutrality rules and the staff person announced that “Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers supports a free and open internet.” What a change of heart, I thought. Well…no.

Then I received an email from “Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers” on May 16 with the subject line, “I support an open Internet.” Imagine that! She must be going to vote in favor of Net Neutrality, right? Not so fast. In case you didn’t get the email memo from her, the whole argument is also posted on her official “Congresswoman” website. You can read it here.

McMorris Rodgers is on the wrong side of this issue and she must know it. If she were actually in favor of a free and open internet she would already have drafted legislation to insure that it remains open and free. Instead, she claims devotion “free and open,” and breathlessly claims the Net Neutrality rules of the Obama administration were unnecessarily burdensome, wrong-headed, and stifling of investment. I can read those statements, congresswoman, but you offer nothing to back them up, nor do you offer your own legislation to assure the internet remains free and open.

Well, that’s not quite true. She does offer a link: “according to a recent economic analysis” in Forbes magazine she claims as proof that Net Neutrality regulation suppressed expansion of the internet. I tried to visit the link several times. It goes to gibberish. When I search Forbes (a publication of “Center Right” bias) for articles on Net Neutrality I come up only with articles in favor of the Net Neutrality regulations.

It seems she has been sipping the Kool-Aid of her corporate backers. Perhaps she believes her own rhetoric. Perhaps she believes she “support(s) an open internet.” But we ought not to believe her until she either submits or supports a viable bill in the House that actually keeps the internet open and free. Until then, and until we get to examine it, her “support” is nothing more than hot air from the Mistress of Messaging.

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

P.S. Background: On May 16 the Senate passed S.J.Res. 52 “disapproving” Ajit Pai’s Federal Election Commission’s ruling dismantling the Obama era Net Neutrality regulations. It now goes to the House, where Republicans need to feel the heat. S.J.Res. 52 passed the Senate without facing a filibuster because those are the rules of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) under which S.J.Res. 52 was passed. It also bypassed the old bullfrog’s, Mitch McConnell’s, stranglehold on what comes to the floor of the Senate. The procedures are a bit complicated. You can read them here on page 14. I think a separate “discharge petition” (i.e. one in the House) would be required for McMorris Rodgers to actually face a vote on the House version of S.J.Res. 52. Without a discharge petition the Republican chair will “sit on” the legislation until it dies, and even if the bill escaped the committee Paul Ryan (Speaker of the House) would refuse to bring it to the floor of the House. Hence, it is an uphill battle in the House. If it did somehow miraculously pass the House it would then go to Trump–and he is likely to veto, but, who knows what he might do on any given day?? Regardless of all that, this is an excellent opportunity to highlight McMorris Rodgers’ and her Republican colleagues’ sellout on this issue. Repealing Net Neutrality is deeply unpopular with voters. Don’t let her get away with the obfuscation she offers in her “I support an open internet.” It is BS.

Dear Group,

“Citizen’s United” is the short form of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizen’s United prevailed in a  5-4 Supreme Court decision handed down January 21st, 2010. Fix that date in your mind. When most Americans hear “Citizens United” they  think about money in politics. Some others might think of free speech and the First Amendment, others of corporate personhood.

So what is “Citizens United?” You might think of upright average Americans united against some perceived injustice, a grassroots sort of organization with lofty, high-minded goals. Well, not quite. As a 501(c)(4) non-profit Citizens United does not disclose its donors, so its claim of “grassroots” is unverifiable. Its current webpage reads like the Trump platform. David Bossie has been president of Citizen’s United since 2000, except for a stint as deputy manager of the Trump campaign. Bossie is a longtime friend of Trump, Steve Bannon, and Kellyanne Conway. Bossie introduced Bannon to Trump.

David Bossie also heads Citizens United Productions (organized as a corporation?). Citizens United Productions has made twenty-five anti-liberal, anti-Democrat political documentaries. One of these, Hillary: The Movie, Citizens United purposefully proposed to air immediately before the Democratic Primary in 2008 (Clinton/Obama) in violation of the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, the last legislative effort to try to curb the influence of big money in politics. The timing of this proposed movie airing was no accident. The possibility of a 5-4 decision at the Supreme Court reversing an essential part of McCain-Feingold was a tantalizing goal. The setup succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the folks who set it up. More on that in Part II.

The next time you hear “Citizens United,” do not succumb to the image of a mass of common citizens seeking to assert their First Amendment rights. The name was no doubt chosen to obscure the agenda of its backers and hangers-on. Think David Bossie, Steve Bannon, and big money seeking control of the system, think of the culmination of a long running war between Republican/Libertarian money and Democratic efforts reduce the effect of that money.

McMorris Rodgers must approve of efforts to keep corporate money flowing into politics and to obscure the origin of the cash. Yesterday I detailed her vote for H.R.5053 – “Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act of 2016.” It passed the House but stalled in the Senate. It would have forbidden the IRS to require names of substantial donors to non-profits, reducing IRS effectiveness and darkening non-profit money even further. In 2010 McMorris Rodgers voted no with her Party on the DISCLOSE ACT, a detailed attempt to close the floodgates Citizens United had just opened. Surely if asked whether she supports the Citizens United decision she would utter her nervous laugh and pivot, but she and her comrades speak volumes with their votes.

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

P.S. Researching the money behind Citizens United is challenging. It appears that one man, David Bossie, heads several different entities. For example, Citizens United is identified as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. Citizens United Productions, I suspect (but have been unable to confirm), may be organized as a corporation. Then there is CITIZENS UNITED SUPER PAC LLC and CITIZENS UNITED POLITICAL VICTORY FUND. The latter is a traditional “qualified” political action committee, the former is obviously a superPAC. You can explore their donors at those links (FEC.gov), but that tells you nothing about the financial backing of Citizens United the nonprofit or Citizens United Productions, the suspected corporation. I recommend Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right” (2016) for a background exploration of the money and personalities of the backers. Warning: Don’t read Dark Money at bedtime. You won’t sleep well.

Dear Group, McMorris Rodgers just received a new distinction: End Citizens United just added her to their Big Money 20, the Congresspeople most owned by corporate and mega-wealthy interests. Click the link, scroll to McMorris Rodgers photo at the bottom of the list. Click the photo there and you will find a trove of very specific information with solid links to texts of bills and voting records.  Having just concluded a three part examination of McMorris Rodgers campaign committees called “Cathy’s Coffers,” the End Citizens United Big Money 20 designation couldn’t have been more timely.  Today I want to look at just one of McMorris Rodgers’ votes brought up by End Citizens United, H.R.5053 – Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act of 2016. In my view there is no better example of her commitment to big money. Jane Mayer’s Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right (2016) lays out in excruciating, densely referenced detail the forty year effort of the Charles and David Koch to bend the Republican party to their Libertarian, Ayn Rand-ian view of the world and how it should operate. They and their donor group systematically established a network of non-profit “think” tanks aimed and steering the political mindset of the electorate toward their own.  The use of non-profit organizations was, of course, the stuff of evil genius. Non-profits in general don’t have to disclose their donors publicly, hence the designation “dark money,” [Take note we are now talking about the “Non-profits” circle in the Roadmap below. We are STILL not discussing SuperPACs.]  However, and this is key, although not necessarily publicly available, since 1988 the IRS has required non-profits to disclose donors of more than $5000 to the IRS. It should be no surprise that the Koch brothers and their donor group are anxious to rid themselves of this encumbrance to their efforts fund their “think” tanks with untraceable dollars.  So what better method than a bill named H.R.5053 – Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act of 2016? What would better protect “Free Speech” than the ability to disguise your contribution to, for example, Americans For Prosperity. If you cannot anonymously contribute mega-dollars to an organization that advocates free market economics then you’re not free, right? Poor dears, I guess their “free speech” requires them to be able to operate in the dark. Will their next effort be to take down the Federal Elections Commission website? You only need to get past the title of the Act to read what it intends to do. It is written in plain, bald-faced english: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from requiring that the identity of contributors to 501(c) organizations be included in annual returns. On June 14, 2016, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 238 other Republicans and 1 Democrat voted in favor of this travesty and passed it out of the House. I guess they assumed that voters would only read the Title H.R. 5053 and not make to the first sentence and understand the meaning. How do they justify this? It made no news I was aware of at the time. Was it marketed as part of their “roll back regulation” agenda? I have thought for some time that the history of campaign finance in the last hundred years has been by and large the history of Democrats and some old-school Republicans puts sensible rules in place and more recent Republican/Libertarian efforts to tear down or circumvent those rules. This is a good example.  If I didn’t already believe that McMorris Rodgers is in the pocket of the Koch brothers and the mega-wealthy, her vote on  H.R.5053 – Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act of 2016 would be incontrovertible proof. (That said, I doubt she admits this truth even to herself.) Keep to the high ground, Jerry A Roadmap for understanding campaign finance This diagram is from a 2014 interactive article in the NYTimes. It is a great place to start understanding the effect of money in our politics. The limits on contributions are indexed to inflation, so the illustrated limits are now higher, e.g. $5400 can be given directly to a Candidate’s election committee ($2700 for the Primary and $2700 for the General election), and a conventional political action committee (PAC) can receive $5000 from an individual donor.