Overturning Democracy... With Lots Of Cash

Yes, Mitt Romney is clueless

Below is an essay about Norman Solomon I found on the Campaign Watch Facebook page. Virtually every problem facing America today can be traced back to the sell-out of our democracy to plutocratic, corporate and fascist interests-- virtually identical-- since the forces of democracy ostensibly won, at least on the battlefield, World War II. I want to emphasize that when Blue America "vets" our candidates we want to make sure they stand for the same values and principles behind this statement. You can be sure that when you donate to Norman Solomon's campaign-- or to the campaigns of any of the Blue America-backed candidates-- you are voting for real campaign finance reform, the kind that will wrest our government out of the hands of, as George Bush put it, the evil doers... except, the real evil doers.

Big Corporate Campaign Contributions



A major problem that has crippled democracy in the U.S. is the unfair advantage that big-money corporations and individuals have in influencing political campaigns through large contributions to elected officials and candidates, as well as through their spending billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. These special interests use their considerable wealth to influence the direction and scope of legislation and government regulations, at the expense of the rights and welfare of the rest of us.



Norman Solomon supports legislative efforts, such as government matching funds and public financing, to correct the problem of disproportionate funding of campaigns, reduce special interest influence on elections, and level the playing field in electoral politics. Norman Solomon supports legislative efforts to reduce the reliance of candidates for office on campaign cash and free them to spend time with constituents to learn about issues that matter to them. When the selected candidates enter office, they can consider legislation on the merits, without worrying about whether they are pleasing large campaign contributors and lobbyists. Norman Solomon wants a government that is of, by, and for the people-- not bought and paid for by big corporate campaign contributions.



Corporate Personhood



A central problem in campaign financing is that corporations are considered persons, and political spending is considered speech under the First Amendment. In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which asserted that the Constitution bars Congress from limiting corporations to spend money, viewed as free speech, in independent political broadcasts in candidate elections. In the year after the ruling, corporations increased their role in our elections, and corporations and their CEOs have used non-profit groups to run multi-million dollar ad campaigns to influence elections and public policy without full disclosure of their financial interests. Norman Solomon stands with roughly 80% of Americans, including Democrats, Republicans and independents, who oppose to the Citizens United ruling.



Norman Solomon endorses the movement to reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. We need to have a national conversation about what to do about the problem of corporations having too much influence in our politics and policies.



The doctrine of corporate personhood has allowed corporations to enjoy other constitutional rights that were intended solely for human beings. This allows corporations to evade democratic control of their actions. Based on the doctrine of corporate personhood, the Supreme Court has:



• prohibited routine inspections of corporate property without a warrant or prior permission, even to ensure public health and safety;



• struck down state laws requiring companies to disclose product origins, thus preventing us from knowing what’s in our food;



• prohibited citizens wanting to defend their local businesses and community from encroachment by corporate chain stores from enacting progressive taxes on chains;



• struck down state laws restricting corporate spending on ballot initiatives and referenda, enabling corporations to block citizen action.



Norman Solomon believes this form of corporate personhood corrupts our Constitution and must be corrected by amending the Constitution.



Norman Solomon agrees with the dissent of Justice Stevens in the Citizen United case that:



…The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.



In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.



Norman Solomon is committed to take those measures “designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”



Election Integrity



Free elections are a cornerstone of the American compact. Norman Solomon supports a national, uniform set of voting rules to make it easier to vote and easier to access ballots. Norman Solomon supports voter registration procedures which will create greater voter turnout, particularly among young people, such as registration on election day and convenient voter registration places like the local mall or supermarket. Norman Solomon supports alternative voting methods such as early voting and absentee voting.



Norman Solomon supports voting systems based on paper ballots that allow the voters to mark their own ballots and provide a permanent, visible record of every vote cast. Vote counting must be transparent and accountable to ensure every citizen’s right to vote. Norman Solomon supports ending the practice of contracting private corporations to carry out fundamental election functions, such as the maintenance of voter lists. In addition, Norman Solomon supports exit polling, complete sharing of data, statistical analysis and auditing to verify election results. Norman Solomon would support an initiative to make election day a national holiday, thereby increasing voter participation.



In addition, Norman Solomon supports organizations that track the influence of money on elections and public policy and make this information accessible to the public. As the influence of money becomes more transparent, Americans can become more informed about what their elected officials are doing and more involved in the process. As a consequence, government can become more accountable and responsive to the non-wealthy citizens of this country.



Judicial Accountability



Norman Solomon supports complete financial disclosure, disclosure of gifts, and recusal in the instances of actual and apparent conflict of interest for all federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices. There needs to be more transparency from all federal judges when their actions come under responsible criticism. Norman Solomon supports proposals to require justices to explain their decisions not to recuse themselves when parties file disqualification motions.

Agree? Please consider making a contribution to Norman's campaign-- or to the campaign of any of the Blue America candidates-- here on the 2012 congressional page. They've all enthusiastically agreed to co-sponsor John Larson's bill to take corrupt cash out of the driver's seat of politics.

Austerity, Rigour... And Why Do Rich People Always Just Get Greedier When They Get Richer?

Market jitters? The American financial industry is pointing to Europe and warning that a collapse of the banking system there could be nigh-- and could be catastrophic for everyone.

Insurance on the debt of several major European banks has now hit historic levels, higher even than those recorded during financial crisis caused by the US financial group's implosion nearly three years ago.



Credit default swaps on the bonds of Royal Bank of Scotland, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and Intesa Sanpaolo, among others, flashed warning signals on Wednesday. Credit default swaps (CDS) on RBS were trading at 343.54 basis points, meaning the annual cost to insure £10m of the state-backed lender's bonds against default is now £343,540.



The cost of insuring RBS bonds is now higher than before the taxpayer was forced to step in and rescue the bank in October 2008, and shows the recent dramatic downturn in sentiment among credit investors towards banks.



"The problem is a shortage of liquidity-- that is what is causing the problems with the banks. It feels exactly as it felt in 2008," said one senior London-based bank executive.



"I think we are heading for a market shock in September or October that will match anything we have ever seen before," said a senior credit banker at a major European bank.

France isn't calling it Austerity, but the proud nation is being dragged into the clutches of the banksters and calling it a "rigour package." Compared to the Austerity measures being proposed in the U.S.-- Obama even floated a trial balloon yesterday that sounded like bringing back indentured servitude-- the French version sounds down right benign.

The measures in the rigour package, dubbed by some the "financial turn of the screw," include:



• An "exceptional contribution" of 3% on taxable earnings for those earning above €500,000 to remain in place until France's deficit had been reduced to 3% of GDP.



• Higher taxes on tobacco and alcohol.



• A modification of capital gains tax on property.



...Among other measures, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, is reported to be considering the abandonment of tax-free overtime for workers. This was one of the measures that, under the slogan "work harder to earn more," was a pillar of his election campaign in 2005, but it has cost an estimated €4.5bn in lost revenues. The government is also looking at ending tax breaks for companies.



Having recently abolished the "financial shield," which set a limit on the total amount of tax that the rich were expected to pay, a new tax on the wealthy would avoid accusations that his austerity measures would hit those lower down the income scale in the run-up to next year's elections.



France and Germany are also discussing proposals for a tax on financial transactions-- a measure that is vehemently opposed by Britain.

Not just Britain... Wall Street is going insane at the idea and is spending millions of dollars in lobbying and in direct bribes campaign contributions to it's most dedicated mouthpieces in government. The 25 worst Wall Street shills in the House (this year only):

John Boehner (R-OH)- $986,787

Eric Cantor (R-VA)- $610,250

Chris Murphy (D-CT)- $380,500

Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)- $350,350

Dave Camp (R-MI)- $343,800

Scott Garrett (R-NJ)- $320,185

Ed Royce (R-CA)- $318,004

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $315,200

Spencer Bachus (R-AL)- $309,115

Pat Tiberi (R-OH)- $300,549

Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $282,485

Robert Dold (R-IL)- $272,006

Nan Hayworth (R-NY)- $240,006

Jim Himes (D-CT)- $233,500

Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $226,670

Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)- $224,133

Steve Israel (D-NY)- $204,000

Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)- $199,750

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)- $197,900

Joseph Crowley (D-NY)- $193,750

Shelley Berkley (D-NV)- $189,660

Peter Roskam (R-IL)- $188,700

Denny Rehberg (R-MT)- $187,330

Francisco Canseco (R-TX)- $183,852

Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $181,400

Bolded names are members of the Financial Services Committee, charged with "regulating" the banksters to keep them from ripping off consumers and society at large. Alan Grayson was on that committee when he was in Congress. Wall Street wasn't giving him money then and, now that he's campaigning to get back into Congress they're not donating to him either. I called Alan-- who's just back from a trip to Ghana-- this morning to get his take on all this. He told me he "always found it puzzling that business interests gave lockstep support to Republicans, despite their fondness for auctioning off the law to the highest bidder." He was just warming up:

The Republican Party may be the party of Big Business, but it is also the party of Economic Failure.

 

Let’s take the stock market, that very apt measure of how rich the rich are.  In Tommy McCall’s classic 2008 article Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants, he pointed out that $10,000 invested in the stock market under Democratic presidents would have grown to $300,671, while $10,000 invested under Republican presidents would have “grown” to $11,733. That’s a 2907% Democratic profit versus a 17% Republican profit. Is that still true? Sure enough, the stock market started to recover less than one month after Barack Obama was sworn in.

 

Since federal spending alone now equals almost a quarter of GNP, is it really good for business to make government small enough to “drown in the bathtub,” as Grover Norquist always demands?

 

And how, exactly, is the banking system supposed to function without regulations? Reserve requirements are regulations. They are the only limits on the banks’ unbridled speculation and gambling with other people’s money. Remove the regulations and a crash will quickly follow. That wouldn’t be good for business.

 

Republican economic mismanagement takes down both the rich and the poor. In other countries, the rich seem to understand that, but not here. Here, the blanket support for Republicans by Big Business and the filthy rich amounts to an economic death wish.

 

There is an old saying: “if you’re so smart, how come you ain’t rich?” I have a different question: when it comes to political self-interest, how can rich people be so dumb?

If we can't count on Congress to protect us-- and we can't-- who can we turn to? That was the whole idea of why Elizabeth Warren came up with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-- and why Wall Street fought so hard to cut it off at the knees. Obama has been nearly as friendly to Wall Street as any Republican president and it would be foolish to expect him to change his stripes. Matt Taibbi has done some great reporting in Rolling Stone about one of the few places where consumers can look for redress: New York's crusading Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman. Basically, Wall Street and their political puppets-- from Obama and the GOP to the rest of the states' attorney generals-- have "cooked up a deal that would allow the banks to walk away with just a seriously discounted fine from a generation of fraud that led to millions of people losing their homes." Schneiderman is the odd man out.

The idea behind this federally-guided “settlement” is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.



This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they’ll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.  



...But Schneiderman, who earlier this year launched an investigation into the securitization practices of Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and other companies, is screwing up this whole arrangement. Until he lies down, the banks don’t have a deal. They need the certainty of having all 50 states and the federal government on board, or else it’s not worth paying anybody off. To quote the immortal Tony Montana, “How do I know you’re the last cop I’m gonna have to grease?” They need all the dirty cops on board, or else the whole enterprise is FUBAR. 



In addition to the global settlement, Schneiderman is also blocking an individual $8.5 billion settlement for Countrywide investors. He has sued to stop that deal, claiming it could “compromise investors’ claims in exchange for a payment representing a fraction of the losses.”



If Schneiderman thinks $8.5 billion is an insufficient, fractional payoff just for defrauded Countrywide investors, then you can imagine how bad a $20 billion settlement for the entire industry would be for the victims.



In that particular Countrywide settlement deal, it looks like Bank of New York Mellon, the New York Fed, Pimco and other players negotiated on behalf of defrauded investors. They told the Times they were happy with the deal, but investors outside the talks told Gretchen they weren’t happy with the settlement.  



Schneiderman apparently listened to those voices instead of the Mellon-Fed-BofA crowd, which infuriated the insiders who struck the actual deal. In a remarkable quote given to the Times, Kathryn Wylde, the Fed board member who ostensibly represents the public, said the following about Schneiderman:



It is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it. Wall Street is our Main Street-- love ’em or hate ’em. They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible.



This, again, is coming not from a Bank of America attorney, but from the person on the Fed board who is supposedly representing the public!



This quote leads one to wonder just what Wylde would consider “indefensible,” given that stealing is pretty much the worst thing that a bank can do-- and these banks just finished the longest and most orgiastic campaign of stealing in the history of money. Is Wylde waiting for Goldman and Citi to blow up a skyscraper? Dump dioxin into an orphanage? It’s really an incredible quote.

Remember this?







She's running for the Senate now, in Massachusetts, against Wall Street's "favorite" senator, Scott Brown. Wall Street and the financial services industry are financing his campaign. Can you help Elizabeth's? Our House candidates worthy of help, like Grayson, are on another page-- this one.

Mitt Romney May Define Political Sleaze But Is He The Only Chance The GOP Has To Reclaim The White House?

While I was asking if America is ready for a Mormon president yesterday, most commentators were poking around Mitt Romney's outrageous and clearly unethical, if not illegal, campaign finance practices. Alexandra Petri, Brad Smith, Dave Weigel and Michale Isikoff were most effective in exposing the laundered million that vulture capitalists Bain funneled into Romney's coffers.

The firm that gave the money, called W Spann LLC, was formed in March-- with no listed officers or directors-- made the contribution in April, then dissolved itself in July, according to corporate records.  

...It is illegal under federal law for political donors to make contributions in the name of another person-- so called “straw donors”--  and such violations have been vigorously prosecuted by the Justice Department in the past, according to campaign finance experts.

But the federal campaign laws have been made increasingly murky as a result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision last year, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political advocacy... collect[ing] millions of dollars from companies and wealthy donors."

Meanwhile Romney put out an expensive web ad attacking Obama's putrid record on free trade. Putrid? Yes, it's basically the same horrendous record that Romney has and has always had... unless he's changed his position this week on this, like he tends to do on everything else. Here's Romney's slick, misleading attack:



The misleading part isn't about Obama; he's as terrible and corporatist as any Republican president has been in our lifetimes... just like Clinton was. The misleading part had to do with Romney's own record. When he was governor of Massachusetts he was an avid free trade advocate. In 2004 the state legislature passed a bill prohibiting Massachusetts contractors from outsourcing state work overseas. Romney not only opposed that, he vetoed the law. And more recently, when President Obama imposed a tariff to stop the dumping of cheap tires on the U.S. market-- something that has been working very well-- Romney was one of the loudest and most obnoxious opponents-- writing the policy of defending "American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity."

Regardless of which side of this issue is your side, I think everyone can agree that Mitt Romney is on all sides-- as he is on every single issue that's ever come down the pike. He has got to be the most dishonest practitioner of a profession that is renowned for its notorious dishonesty.

And still Beltway conventional wisdom is that Romney is the only shot the Republican Party has to defeat Obama.

A broad theme has been emerging in our state by state Presidential polling over the last couple months: if the Republicans nominate Mitt Romney it's a toss up. And if they nominate anyone else it's 2008 all over again. Our newest Nevada numbers very much reinforce that trend.

Barack Obama took the Silver State by 12 points in his first run. But if he had to stand for reelection today he'd be in a very competitive race against Romney, leading only 47-46 in the state. Pit him against any of the other Republicans there though and the numbers look pretty similar to last time- 9 point advantages over Herman Cain and Rick Perry at 48-39 and 49-40 respectively, a 10 point lead over Michele Bachmann at 50-40, and a 12 point advantage over Sarah Palin at 51-39.

Over the last month we've had similar findings in:

-Pennsylvania, where Obama is tied with Romney but leads all other Republicans by at least 7 points.

-New Hampshire, where Romney leads Obama by 2 points but all other Republicans trails Obama by at least 7.

-Virginia, where Obama leads Romney by 4 but has at least a 9 point advantage over all the rest of the GOP hopefuls.

-Michigan, where Obama has a 5 point advantage over Romney but at least a 15 point lead over everyone else.

-North Carolina, where the disparity between Romney and the rest of the Republicans isn't quite as great. Obama and Romney are tied while Obama leads all the others by at least 3 points.

Taken all together it makes you ask the question: do Republicans have to nominate Romney to defeat Obama next year?

The Supreme Court's final rulings of the term -- some surprises, but in the end really more of the same

Plus: Will Blago have to serve the full 300 years?

""Laws like Arizona's matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand."

-- Chief Justice "Smirkin' John" Roberts, in his opinion
in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett

by Ken

Here's how the story was reported in Arizona:

Supreme Court strikes down provision of Arizona campaign finance law

by Mary Jo Pitzl - Jun. 27, 2011
The Republic | azcentral.com

In a 5-4 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday struck down a key provision of Arizona's public campaign-finance law.

The court's decision means candidates running under the Arizona Clean Elections system in next year's state elections will not be able to tap public dollars to match the funds raised by their opponents.

Matching funds were created to try and level the playing field between candidates running with public funds and those funding their campaigns with traditional fund-raising tactics. . . .

Man oh man, if there's anything the Roberts Court Gang of Five hates, it's trying to create a level playing field.

The most useful commentary I've seen so far remains the one provided by The New Republic's Rick Hasen: "The Arizona Campaign Finance Law: The Surprisingly Good News in the Supreme Court’s New Decision." Hasen (a visiting law professor at UC Irvine and the writer of Election Law Blog), as I noted earlier, finds in the decision "three pieces of unexpected good news to those of us who believe that reasonable campaign finance regulation is not only constitutional, but essential to prevent corruption and ensure fairness in our democracy":

(1) "[T]he Roberts Court seems to have retreated from the suggestion that all campaign finance laws, aside from disclosure, are in constitutional trouble. . . . [T]he Court confirmed that Citizens United did not overturn the law related to contribution limits, finding these restrictions 'less onerous' and to be upheld under a 'lower level of scrutiny.' That's important, because opponents of campaign finance laws such as conservative attorney Jim Bopp have been going around citing Citizens United in their attempts to get contribution limits struck down left and right."

(2) Confounding some expectations of where Justice Elena Kagan might stand on this issue, based on some of her academic writings, she emerges in writing the dissenting opinion "as a forceful intellectual voice for the constitutionality of reasonable campaign finance regulation. . . . Kagan's dissent was caustic, accusing the majority of missing the point and the challengers to the Arizona law as full of chutzpah. . . . Kagan has emerged here as not only an intellectual leader, but a pugnacious, take-no-prisoners' writer on an issue about which she feels passionately. It is a welcome contrast to Justice Stevens' meandering dissent in Citizens United."

(3) "The last piece of good news is that the Court did not level a death blow to public financing laws. Instead, it said that the decision of cities, states, or Congress enact public financing is 'not our business.' The problem with Arizona's law was not that it gave public financing for elections to candidates, but that it pegged the amount of financing to the political spending of opponents or independent groups opposing the candidate. But lump sum payments should be okay."

Professor Hasen adds:

The big question left open is the fate of public financing programs such as New York City's, which give extra matching funds to participating candidates who collect small donations. This program doesn't directly violate the rule in today's Arizona case, because the amount received is not triggered by opponent spending. But the question will be whether the motive for such programs is to level the playing field. Under the Roberts Court's view of the First Amendment, such an interest remains verboten, even if, as Justice Kagan points out, the law also is justified on anticorruption grounds. Without something like additional matching funds, it is hard to see how governments will enact public financing programs that are both constitutional and attractive enough to candidates.

IN TODAY'S OTHER MAJOR COURT DECISION, ON
SHIELDING MINORS FROM VIDEO-GAME VIOLENCE . . .

The conversion of the First Amendment into a right-wing cudgel continues, as the Court struck down California's attempt to prevent sales of extremely violent video games to minors on First Amendment grounds, with ideological lines zigzagging all over the place. The vote was 7-2, and the justices in the "majority" seemed to be ruling on two totally different cases (about the only thing they had in common was their "yea" votes), while the minority consisted of the odd couple of Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.

The assorted opinions seem mostly direct projections from the relevant justices' ids and superegos. Note, though, that in the end the decision follows the money. Companies wanna sell stuff, and the Roberts Court rarely gets between rich fat white guys and their quest for the Holy Buck.


ELSEWHERE ON THE JUDICIAL FRONT: DOES THIS
MEAN BLAGO'S OFF THE TALK-SHOW CIRCUIT?

Jury convicts ousted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich of trying to sell Obama’s old Senate seat

by Associated Press, Monday, June 27

CHICAGO — Rod Blagojevich, who rode his talkative everyman image to two terms as Illinois governor before scandal made him a national punch line, was convicted Monday of a wide range of corruption charges, including the incendiary allegation that he tried to sell or trade President Barack Obama’s Senate seat.

The verdict was a bitter defeat for Blagojevich, who had spent 2½ years professing his innocence on reality TV shows and later on the witness stand. His defense team had insisted that hours of FBI wiretap recordings were just the ramblings of a politician who liked to think out loud. He faces up to 300 years in prison, although federal sentencing guidelines are sure to reduce his time behind bars. . . .

What? You mean the bastard's not going to serve the full 300 years? It's an outrage!

UPDATE: Raúl Grijalva Responds To Supreme Court's Narrow Pro-Fascist, Anti-Democracy Decision

Calling the decision “a troubling sign that wealth now decides how much free speech you get," Grijalva explained that it will reduce the number of qualified people running for office because they can no longer respond to barrages of attack ads with public campaign funds. According to Reuters, about two-thirds of Arizona state candidates use the current public financing system. “Who wants that many Arizonans to decide they can no longer ask for our votes simply because they’re not wealthy?” Grijalva said. He pointed out that the Arizona law in no way prohibits any individual or group from buying advertising or otherwise communicating a political stance or opinion. “All the state said was that money shouldn’t be the determining factor in an election, and today the Supreme Court decided otherwise,” he said. “It’s part of a larger pattern that began with the ideological Citizens United ruling, which has made it impossible to fix what ails our political process. As soon as you decide a corporation is a person, with all the rights we’re granted as free citizens, you’ve turned government into a contest of corporate interests versus popular interests, and corporations always have more to spend than individuals.”

Grijalva said the logic of today’s decision is more about who influences elections than a plain reading of the First Amendment. “While the court majority described this as a matter of free speech, we should talk about the real issue: corporate control of the political process,” Grijalva said. “Working people’s voices continue to be drowned out by well financed corporations with expert marketing strategies. The Framers of our Constitution never meant for wealthy companies or individuals with their own agendas to drown out the rest of us in public debate, especially not by outspending us.”

The dissenting opinion points out that the victorious plaintiffs in the case “ask this Court to prevent Arizona from funding electoral speech-- even though that assistance is offered to every state candidate, on the same (entirely unobjectionable) basis.”

#

Russ Feingold Explains The Biggest Threat To America At Netroots Nation

Several years ago I had lunch with then-Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) to try to talk him into running for president. As you can see from the photo above, I even wore a Wisconsin-looking shirt with a collar. It didn't work, and several years later, last year, Wisconsin voters, pissed off at Obama's failure to live up to expectations, stayed away from the polls in massive numbers and allowed for a fascist-oriented sweep in their state, a sweep that led to Governor Scott Walker, to a Republican-dominated state legislature, to the loss of two Democratic-held congressional seats and, tragically, to a 52-47% defeat for one of America's most admired and principled political leaders, Russ Feingold.

I'm in Nepal now, but I was able to watch his keynote speech at Netroots Nation online Thursday evening. Predictably, he spoke about the single most important issue facing America, the existential threat to democracy by fascism. And he wasn't just railing against how Republicans have completely sold out to corporate bribes. As he pointed out, the Democrats are nearly as bad. Feingold wants to see Obama, who's probably taken more Wall Street money than anyone who's ever run for president, make a priority of overturning the right-wing Supreme Court decision to further open up the opportunities for corporations to buy up the government and further make government serve the interests of corporations instead of the original idea of having corporations serve the interests of society.

"I fear that the Democratic Party is in danger of losing its identity," Feingold said. "Creating those kinds of Super PACs is wrong. People will see us as weak. People will see us as Corporate Lite. It's not just wrong. It's a dumb strategy."

...In reference to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance, which reflected the view that campaign cash restrictions infringe on free speech, he said: "Speech doesn't corrupt. Money corrupts, and money isn't speech."

He touted the law he passed in 2002 with John McCain to curb soft money and expressed hope that an Obama second term could put another justice on the court to tip the 5 to 4 balance on campaign finance law.

He called on Congress to pass a bill that requires more disclosure, and he praised the president in advance for making a "gutsy move" with an expected executive order that will require companies with government contracts to disclose their campaign spending.

In response to the influx of corporate money into the campaign process, Feingold said he's trying to buy more products from progressive corporations. "I want to buy Democratic toothpaste. I want to buy progressive toothpaste," he said. "Same thing with detergent."

He also said that General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is "not the right guy" to be leading the president's jobs council.

Looking one part activist, senator, and law-school lecturer, Feingold devoted a significant chunk of his speech to an extended history lesson on how campaign finance laws evolved since the end of the Gilded Age and the dawn of the Progressive Era. The country will return to a second Gilded Age if progressives don't work aggressively to "put the genie back in the bottle," Feingold said. "Except it will be the Gilded Age on steroids."

And that Gilded Age ascension of corporatism led directly to a dangerous rise of fascism, not just in Europe but, as we've been discussing for the past few weeks, in America as well. Allow me to quote from Glen Yeadon's book, The Nazi Hydra in America.

Up until recently the media has led the American people to believe that only a handful of American corporations ever invested in Germany or dealt directly with the Nazis. But a recent [Newsweek] article puts the number of American corporations involved with supplying the Nazis at more than 300. However, even this article while particularly damaging for Chase Bank as well as to Ford and General Motors, is shamefully apologetic to corporate America and plainly inaccurate on other accounts. It shamefully tries to exonerate one of the most notorious fascists in America during the war, the du Ponts by suggesting they did not invest in Nazi Germany after the 1930s. The reality is that the du Ponts had several cartel agreements with the Nazis and were openly pro-fascist supporters in this country.

Another recent article coming from German investigators states that 26 of the top 100 firms in the U.S were guilty of serious war crimes. One report is particularly damaging for Ford and General Motors indicating that US lawyers now have direct evidence of the companies both knowingly using slave labor and having closely collaborated with the Nazis.

...Standard Oil was shipping oil from Aruba in the Dutch West Indies to the Canary Islands.

"Standard...is diverting about 20 percent of the fuel oil to the present German Government. About six ships operating on this route are reputed to be manned mainly by Nazi officers. Seamen have reported to the informant that they have seen submarines in the immediate vicinity of the Canary Islands and have learned that the submarines are refueling there. The Informant also stated that Standard Oil Company has not lost any ships to date by torpedoing as have other American companies whose ships operate to other ports."

By 1944, America was seriously short on oil. The upcoming D-Day invasion would require an even greater amount and a stable supply. Lack of oil would cancel the planned invasion or imperil the troops ashore if it was not forthcoming. At the time, it cost ten cents a barrel to bring the oil up and another fifteen cents for royalties to the Sheikh of Bahrain or 20 cents for drilling in Arabia and another twenty-one cents for the royalties to Ibn Saud. However, prior to the invasion, W.S.S. Rodgers of Texas Company and Henry Collier of Standard Oil of California informed Ickes that the price for the government would be $1.05 a barrel. This was almost double the current price. The offer was take it or leave it. Ickes was forced to accept. The threat of an interruption of supply if the U.S. government should intervene was explicit. Even more grievous was the fact that Rodgers and Collier paid no income tax on their ill-gotten profits because they had registered their company in the Bahamas. Their profit of $120 million dollars was made on a $1 million dollar investment.

Such behavior is not only criminal; it is treasonous. Standard put its own self-interest ahead of the country’s interest. It willingly to put the lives of GIs in danger and even ran the risk of a defeat in Europe. In effect, Standard Oil blackmailed FDR's administration for private gains. No charges of war profiteering were ever filed. Like Seldes said, the big boys are immune from prosecution.

These treasonous families and corporations from just a few decades ago were the real winners of World War II, despite throwing in their lot with the fascists they admired and supported. Today they control the Republican Party entirely and are on the verge of taking over the Democratic Party as well. Obama is nearly as much a puppet of these interests as Romney. Feingold: