Corporate America wants even more freedom to buy elections

An upcoming Supreme Court case could make it a lot easier for anti-worker billionaires to buy elections -- not that it's exactly difficult for them to do so already.

It seems the 2010 Citizens United decision declaring money is speech and flooding our democracy with corporate cash just isn't enough. McCutcheon v. FEC could allow the super-rich to pour millions of dollars directly into the campaign coffers of their preferred candidates.

The Huffington Post explains: 

An Alabama millionaire named Shaun McCutcheon is challenging a long-standing law on how much money individual donors can give directly to candidates and party committees. If Mr. McCutcheon wins his case, a single wealthy individual could give a total of more than $2.4 million to his or her favorite candidates, and another million-plus dollars to the party committee of their choice - for a total of 3.5 million dollars.

Mr. McCutcheon claims money is speech and that any legislative measure which hinders his dollar offends "liberty." But irrespective of the patriotic rhetoric, what McCutcheon is really suing for is the right to buy elections. Because 93 percent of the time, the candidate who raises the most money, wins.

Call it Citizens United II. Except this time corporations and billionaires want even more freedom to rig elections, Wall Street-style.

According to Constitution Daily:

In 2010, the Supreme Court delivered its controversial 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which set the stage for enormous sums of money to be spent in elections through super PACs and other independent entities.

On Tuesday, October 8—less than three years after deciding Citizens United—the Supreme Court will hear arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a case which has the potential to flood millions of dollars more into United States elections—and this time, directly into the coffers of candidates for elected office.

This graphic from the Center for Responsive Politics shows what's at stake in the McCutcheon case. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of McCutcheon, it would have a multiplying effect on the impact of wealthy donors:

One of the first things that would surely happen without overall limits would be a wave of newly created PACs focused on specific candidates' campaigns, which would allow donors to give $5,000 to any number of committees that would then give the money directly to the candidates.   

In 2012, 78 percent of election spending was attributed to the massive influx of outside money that Citizens United injected into the political process. That's $933 million more in political spending.

And in states like Wisconsin, campaign spending has tripled since Citizens United. The recall election against union-busting Gov. Scott Walker was the most expensive election in Wisconsin's history, with Walker raising over $30.5 million -- seven times more than his opponent.

McCutcheon v. FEC threatens to accelerate the damage that Citizens United has already done to our democracy. While arguments in the case will be heard tomorrow in front of the Supreme Court, hundreds of workers, labor activists and others will be outside the Court rallying against big money in politics. 

As a wealthy GOP backer, McCutcheon argues that limiting individuals' campaign donations is a restriction on their free speech. But for most people, the biggest limitation on their campaign contributions is their wallets. It's too bad then that McCutcheon isn't trying to overturn economic inequality instead of campaign finance restrictions.

Citizens United and McCutcheon are leading a national conspiracy to make corporations into people in the eyes of the law. Of course, if corporations are "people," then real people like us are made to be less than people in our political system.

Rove and Kochs secretly outspending everyone in 2012

Add this to middle-class woes: Two Super PACs that have vacuumed millions from billionaires and corporations are outspending political parties, unions, trade associations and political action committees, according to an analysis by Pro Publica.

The Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity and Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS have already spent $60 million on attack ads. The electorate has no way of knowing which corporations and billionaires are contributing to this tsunami of deceptive anti-middle-class propaganda.

Reports Kim Baker at Pro Publica:

Campaign-finance reform advocates say the spending by the two organizations highlights the role anonymous money is playing in this election, which will be the most expensive in history. 

"First of all, it shows how much desire there is for secrecy among huge donors who want to be able to spend money to influence this election without leaving any fingerprints," said Fred Wertheimer, who runs Democracy 21, a watchdog group. "Secondly, it shows that so far, there is an enormous advantage being played in this election by just two groups that are exercising undue influence in the elections..."

After the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in January 2010, which paved the way for unlimited corporate and union spending on federal elections, many predicted that super PACs would become the biggest vehicle for outside spending. Hundreds of super PACs soon sprang up, some of which paired up with c4s. 

But it's the sidekicks, the c4s, that have proved more muscular. Rove's super PAC, American Crossroads, has spent an estimated $6.6 million on broadcast TV ads mentioning a candidate for president, CMAG data shows. Crossroads GPS has spent more than six times as much.

Super PACs: 22 people contributed $67 million

Political campaigns ought to be about repealing Nafta. Bringing good jobs home. Prosecuting Wall Street criminals. Restoring our home values. Lowering the cost of college tuition.

They're not. They're about bad jokes, tax returns and extramarital affairs.

And that's deliberate. The super-wealthy who bankroll anti-worker politicians like Koch whore Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Mitt Romney don't want anyone talking about restoring the middle class.

The influence of the super-wealthy is only growing. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision unleashed a tsunami of political cash from the .000000071%. As Stephen Colbert noted in a recent show,

...half of the money ($67 million) raised by super PACs in 2011 came from just 22 people.

Here's how it works, according to Ari Berman:

Before Citizens United, the maximum amount one person could give to a candidate was $2,500; for a political action committee, $5,000; for a political party committee, $30,800. Now, the sky’s the limit for a super PAC, and even more disturbingly, any donor can give an unlimited contribution to a 501c4 -- outfits defined by the IRS as “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,” and to make matters worse, that contribution will remain eternally secret. In this way, American politics is descending further into the darkness, with 501c4s quickly gaining influence as “shadow super PACs.”

Disgusted yet? If not, read on about how "social welfare" groups buy our democracy

:...at a cost of $24 million, 40% of the TV ads in the presidential race so far came from these tax-exempt “social welfare” groups. The Karl Rove-founded American Crossroads, a leading conservative super PAC ... also runs a 501c4 called Crossroads GPS. It’s raised twice as much money as its sister group, all from donations whose sources will remain hidden from American voters. Serving as a secret slush fund for billionaires evidently now qualifies as social welfare.

This is exactly why unions are more important than ever. Only through mass mobilization of working families will we get the money out of politics -- and restore the middle class.

Citizens United meets Stephen Colbert

Stephen Colbert drew a large crowd and lots of excitement in Washington, D.C., yesterday, where he filed paperwork for his super PAC at the Federal Election Commission.

"I stand here on the same historic site where George Washington filed his independent expenditure-only papers," said Colbert, the satirical pundit host of the Colbert Report on Comedy Central.

In March, Colbert announced his plan to become a "political playa in 2012" by starting his own Political Action Committee called ColbertPAC. However, Comedy Central's corporate parent, Viacom, asked Colbert to cease his plans for fears that his PAC would violate campaign finance laws.

Colbert's recently retained attorney, former FEC Commissioner Trevor Potter, helped bring ColbertPAC back to life this week in the form of a super PAC.

The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision allows for super PACs to raise unlimited funds from corporations. The Citizens United legal decision gives billionaires like the union-busting Koch brothers even more sway over government.

"What is a super PAC?" Colbert asked. "A PAC that got bitten by a radioactive lobbyist?"

After Colbert filed his paperwork and exited the FEC offices at 9th and E Streets, he told his audience that he would gladly shake hands for one dollar per person.

He then led the crowd in a cheer of, "Citizens United! Citizens United! Citizens United!"