As you might imagine this time of year, I’ve been doing a lot of media appearances around the country to discuss this year’s elections. Most have been in regard to the failed e-voting systems used in early voting and on Election Day tomorrow. But NY’s WBAI ran an excellent piece this morning, on which I appeared, to discuss the ongoing disaster that is the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision asserting, again, that corporations are the same as “people” and thus deserve the “free speech” right to spend as much as they want to affect the outcomes of U.S. elections.
My contribution to the segment is heard near the beginning, in the background description of what the case was, what it means, and what has happened since it was decided last January. A lot of interesting discussion follows thereafter.
Download MP3 (appx 40 mins), or listen online below…
The BRAD BLOG on the Air 11/1/2010On NY’s WBAI This Morning on ‘Citizens United’ and the Ensuing ‘Bastardization of Our Democracy’… · · · · · On NY’s WBAI This Morning on ‘Citizens United’ and the Ensuing ‘Bastardization of Our Democracy’…0:00 0:00
• Ernest Hancock covered the Citizens United decision at The BRAD BLOG here…
• I wrote a piece on the same case, “The End of Democracy”, for Hustler here…
• Velvet Revolution’s StopTheChamber.org campaign has been trying for highlight concerns for nearly a year about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who is, perhaps, the number one recipient of millions in undisclosed corporate funds as now being spent to influence elections around the country this year — in support of Republicans by a factor of 7 to 1, by the way — in the wake of Citizens United. [Disclosure: The BRAD BLOG is a co-founder of VR.]
Brad,
Only a combination of low Democratic turnout and systemic fraud can win the House OR the Senate for the GOP.
Here is the ONLY model you will find on the bashful blogosphere or the comatose media which even mentions the F-word, much less includes a fraud factor into their forecast.
For ten years they have refused to do their job as millions of votes were switched from the Dems to the GOP. But it took just one report of vote-switching to the Democrats in NC and a bogus pimp video.
But they are not alone. Not one Democratic politician will mention the F-word, either. They all FEAR the wrath of their corporate benefactors.
http://richardcharnin.com/2010E...castModels.htm
The funny thing is the biggest spenders of the evil corporations are the…. Labor Unions.
Yep, they’ve out spent the Chamber of Commerce (the new liberal boogeyman) by a wide margin. Funny, Brad doesn’t mention that.
http://politics.usnews.com/opin...elections.html
Wow, WingNutSteve, do you really not understand the issue here, or are you being willfully obtuse?
First, let’s take a little walk down Logic Lane.
The issue is about the TRANSPARENCY of who DONATED the millions to these third party groups — NOT about who is spending the most money (public funding for elections is the conversation we should be having).
With labor unions, it’s very clear who they are, and where their money came from — their middle-class members are teachers, office workers, janitors, etc. Unions are required to report their campaign expenditures and their funding sources, which is why you know about it.
Third party groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce & American Crossroads (the only two groups among many that were mentioned in the op-ed you chose as your “evidence”) DO NOT DISCLOSE their donors, so we do not know WHO or WHAT is behind the money of these million dollar ad campaigns.
Do you see the difference now? Secrecy vs. transparency & disclosure.
You are apparently in the minority when it comes to campaign finance disclosure. Polling shows most Americans want to know who paid for these third party groups. The vast majority of Americans — 97% or so — don’t make over $250K. They clearly sense the inherent unfairness of being unable to compete with the purchasing power of the millionaires, billionaires, and corporations who fund these secret groups to advance their interests.
So are we all clear now on the false dichotomy you presented, and how the two aren’t actually equivalent at all? To be clear, this isn’t the same as the conversation of taking ALL outside money out of elections in favor of public funding of campaigns.
BTW, if you’d like your links to stand up as “evidence”, an op-ed by a former GHW Bush Administration speechwriter really doesn’t cut it here.
The Chamber of Commerce (Brad’s boogeyman) get their money from their members, as do the Unions.
I believe all of the money should be taken out of the mix, for both sides. The SC ruling effected Corporations and Unions, you could look it up.
Steve, you completely ignored the point of my post. So I’ll try to say it louder:
THE ISSUE IS ABOUT THE TRANSPARENCY of WHO DONATED MILLIONS TO THESE THIRD PARTY GROUPS.
The Chamber of Commerce DOES NOT disclose who its donors are. Unions are required to do so.
The Chamber’s donations come from more sources than just their members, multi-billion-dollar corporations like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Wal-mart.
Unions, on the other hand, use just their members’ dues for political expenditures — non-billionaires like teachers, janitors, police officers, firefighters, office workers.
SECONDLY, you seem to be under the misapprehension that the Chamber and American Crossroads are the ONLY third party groups spending millions on this election, and NONE OF THEM are required DISCLOSE their donors.
Third party expenditures from these groups in total outnumbers labor unions’ spending by a 4 to 1 margin.
Not surprised that you would attempt to draw a false equivalency between a teacher making $30k a year and giving her couple hundred in dues to her working class union, and a billionaire with business before Congress who can personally donate millions at a pop to ALL of the astroturf front groups, in addition to the money he can direct his corporation(s) to ALSO donate to these same groups, in addition to his companies’ Chamber of Commerce dues and any additional side donations (like how Fox News Channel donated an additional $1 million to the Chamber on top of their regular dues).
>I believe all of the money should be taken out of the mix, for both sides.
Glad to see we can agree on that. Full public funding of elections, and no third party advertising.
I could care less about the point of your post.
I WAS RESPONDING TO BRAD CALLING OUT THE EVIL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.