Tag Archives: citizens-united

Florida has a new climate champion. Is he for real?

Francis Rooney was elected in 2017 to serve Florida’s conservative 19th district in the U.S. House of Representatives. He beat his Democratic opponent Robert Neeld handily, using momentum from the Trumpian red tide to hammer home points about “American strength.” But a calendar year into his tenure, the representative is grappling with another red tide: a toxic algae bloom that has been inundating Florida’s coast since pretty much the minute Rooney took office. The bloom has enraged voters and threatened the state’s tourism industry — its No. 1 economic driver.

That could be a big factor in Rooney joining the Climate Solutions Caucus last week, adding his name to a growing list of Republican representatives who have joined the group. But as coastal states across the country grapple with climate-fueled hurricanes, wildfires, and algae blooms, is Representative Rooney actually serious about taking action on behalf of his sinking, muck-inundated state? Or is this another example of political peacocking?

The Climate Solutions Caucus (CSC) is like the Noah’s Ark of congressional climate bipartisanship — it’s a growing group of 90 representatives that includes a Republican for every Democrat. The organization was founded by Floridians from opposite sides of the aisle and now includes six Republicans from the state. The group’s goal? “Explore policy options that address our changing climate.” And that’s just what the caucus has been doing: exploring, not much else.

In some cases, the members of the caucus can’t even be bothered to talk about climate change. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a seminal report on Sunday saying we only have 12 years to head off the most catastrophic effects of global warming. None of the group’s Republican members have so much as tweeted about the major report (and only a handful of the Democrats have weighed in).

The House of Representatives put forth an anti-carbon tax resolution in July. A whopping 39 of the 43 Republican members voted for that resolution denouncing carbon taxes. It passed with flying colors.

That’s why some environmentalists let out a groan when the group announced it had wrangled Rooney. The representative voted pro-environment zero times his first year in office, which earned him a whopping 0 percent score from the League of Conservation Voters, an organization that keeps tabs on how elected officials vote on the environment. But Andres Jimenez, senior director of government affairs at Citizens Climate Lobby, says Rooney’s score isn’t a good roadmap for what’s ahead. And as Florida grapples with climate change (and it’s voters grapple with an algae bloom), the way Rooney votes in the next Congress may tell an entirely different story.

“Folks on the outside are saying [the members] aren’t doing much, they’re using [the climate caucus] for elections,” says Jimenez. “But it’s a step-by-step-process.” Already, Rooney’s recent votes indicate a change of heart. While he cast zero pro-environment votes in 2017, he voted green six times this year — including a vote against the aforementioned anti-carbon tax resolution.

Of Rooney’s past voting record, Jimenez says: “He’s a new member of Congress; I think he was just trying to get his feet wet and figure out exactly what his role would be and where he wanted to land on many issues.” If Rooney follows through on his newfound dedication to environmental issues, it won’t just be a shift; it’ll be a 180. But Jimenez says that’s exactly the kind of flip that we should be expecting. “He’s been very vocal about using next Congress to be the Republican leader in Florida on environmental issues.”

This likely won’t be the last time we see a politician in a climate change-ravaged state change their minds (or at least say they’re changing their minds) about environmental policy. According to Jimenez, environmental disasters have a galvanizing effect on politicians. “Big events like those that have happened in Florida, New York, the Carolinas, those are all leading members to introduce legislation around these issues. There’s definitely a correlation there.”

The folks over at League of Conservation Voters who have been keeping tabs on these newly climate-woke politicians aren’t quite convinced. “Politicians on both sides of the aisle are realizing that opposing climate action is a liability in Florida,” says Alyssa Roberts, national press secretary for the organization, “although some are more genuine than others.” She adds: “It’ll take more than talk to fight the climate crisis.”

View article: 

Florida has a new climate champion. Is he for real?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Florida has a new climate champion. Is he for real?

Today’s Dose of Liberal Heresy: Campaign Finance Reform Isn’t That Big a Deal

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I was musing the other day about something or other, and for some reason it occurred to me that there are several subjects near and dear to progressive hearts that I flatly disagree with. I’m not talking about, say, charter schools, where there’s a robust, ongoing intra-liberal debate and both sides already have plenty of adherents. Nor am I talking about things like Wall Street regulation, where everyone (including me) thinks we need to do more but we disagree on technical issues (Bernie wants to break up big banks, I want to double capital requirements).

I’m thinking instead of things that seem to enjoy something like 90+ percent liberal support—and which I think are basically a waste of liberal time and energy. So if I write about them, a whole lot of people are going to be pissed off. Something like 90+ percent of my readership, I’d guess. Who needs the grief? After all, for the most part there’s usually not much harm in spending time and energy on these things (though there are exceptions).

But let’s give it a go anyway. Maybe this will be the first entry in a periodic series. Maybe I’ll discover that I’m not quite as alone on these issues as I think. Here’s my first entry.

Campaign Finance Reform

Liberals love campaign finance reform. Citizens United is our Roe v. Wade, and it’s become an even more central issue since Bernie Sanders began his presidential run last year. As near as I can tell, Bernie—along with most liberals—thinks it’s the key foundational issue of modern progressivism. Until we seriously reduce the amount of money in political campaigns, no real progressive reform is possible.

I’m pretty sure this is completely wrong. Here are seven reasons that have persuaded me of this over the years, with the most important reason left to the end:

  1. Half a century has produced nothing. Liberals groups have been putting serious effort into campaign finance reform for about 40 years now. The only result has been abject failure. Ban union donations, they create PACs. Ban hard money, you get soft money. Ban soft money, you get Super PACs. Etc. None of the reforms have worked, and even before Citizens United the Supreme Court had steadily made effective reform efforts harder and harder. What’s even worse, the public still isn’t with us. If you ask them vaguely if they think there’s too much money in politics, most will say yes. If you ask them if they really care, they shrug. After nearly half a century, maybe it’s time to ask why.
  2. Other countries spend less. Most other rich countries spend a lot less on political campaigns than we do. Are they less in thrall to moneyed interests because of this? Some are, some aren’t. I’ve never seen any convincing evidence that there’s much of a correlation.
  3. Billionaires are idiots. Seriously. The evidence of the last decade or so suggests that billionaires just aren’t very effective at using their riches to win elections. This is unsurprising: billionaires are egotists who tend to think that because they got rich doing X, they are also geniuses at Y and Z and on beyond zebra. But they aren’t. This stuff is a hobby for them, and mostly they’re just wasting their money.
  4. The small-dollar revolution. Starting with Howard Dean in 2004, the internet has produced an explosion of small-dollar donations, accounting for over a third of presidential fundraising in 2012 and 2016. This year, for example, Hillary Clinton has so far raised $288 million (including money raised by outside groups). Bernie Sanders has raised $208 million, all of it in small-dollar donations averaging $27. Ironically, at the same time that he’s made campaign finance reform a major issue, Bernie has demonstrated that small dollars can power a serious insurgency.
  5. Money really is speech. Obviously this is an opinion, and a really rare one on my side of the political spectrum. But why should political speech be restricted? My read of the First Amendment suggests that if there’s any single kind of speech that should enjoy the highest level of protection, it’s political speech.
  6. We may have maxed out anyway. There’s increasing evidence that in big-time contests (governors + national offices), we’ve basically reached the point of diminishing returns. At this point, if billionaires spend more money it just won’t do much good even if they’re smart about it. There are only so many minutes of TV time available and only so many persuadable voters. More important, voters have only so much bandwidth. Eventually they tune out, and it’s likely that we’ve now reached that point.

    In the interests of fairness, I’ll acknowledge that I might be wrong about this. It might turn out that there are clever ways to spend even more; billionaires might get smarter; and Citizens United has only just begun to affect spending. Maybe in a couple of decades I’ll be eating my words about this.

  7. Campaign spending hasn’t gone up much anyway. I told you I’d leave the most important reason for the end, and this is it. It’s easy to be shocked when you hear about skyrocketing billions of dollars being spent on political campaigns, but billions of dollars aren’t that much in a country the size of the United States. In 2012, Obama spent $1.1 billion vs. Mitt Romney’s $1.2 billion. That’s about 1 percent of total ad spending in the US. Hell, in the cell phone biz alone, AT&T spent $1.3 billion vs. Verizon’s $1.2 billion. If you want to look at campaign spending, you really need to size it to the growth in GDP over the past half century or so.

So here it is. These two charts show our skyrocketing spending on presidential campaigns as a percent of GDP. Data for the chart on the left comes from Mother Jones. The chart on the right comes from the Center for Responsive Politics. Total presidential spending is up about 18 percent since 2000. I supposed I’d like to see this reduced as much as the next guy, but it’s hard to see it as the core corrupter of American politics. It’s a symptom, but it’s really not the underlying disease. There really are problems with the influence of the rich on American politics, but campaigns are probably the place where it matters least, not most.

Read the article – 

Today’s Dose of Liberal Heresy: Campaign Finance Reform Isn’t That Big a Deal

Posted in alo, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Today’s Dose of Liberal Heresy: Campaign Finance Reform Isn’t That Big a Deal

Will Citizens United Save Bob McDonnell From Prison?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which overturned restrictions on corporate and union campaign contributions, has been blamed for a lot of things: a flood of “ads that pull our politics into the gutter” (per President Barack Obama), the increased power of billionaires in politics, and even the rise of Donald Trump. This year, critics might be able to add another item to that list: keeping disgraced former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell out of prison.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the criminal case against the former rising star of the Republican Party. In January 2015, a federal judge sentenced McDonnell to two years in prison on corruption charges, stemming from his acceptance of loans and gifts from a political supporter. McDonnell is now fighting the sentence before the Supreme Court. The former governor argues that the charges against him should be thrown out, pointing to the court’s ruling in Citizens United where the court’s majority rejected the notion that political favors are always equivalent to criminal corruption. If the court agrees with McDonnell, prosecutors might have a more difficult time going after public corruption in the future.

Here are the facts of the case. When McDonnell took office in 2010, he and his wife were in deep financial trouble, in large part because of bad real estate investments. He owed credit card companies nearly $75,000 and was losing money on rental properties he owned with his sister in Virginia Beach that were mortgaged to the hilt. He’d borrowed $160,000 from friends and family to stay afloat.

Continue Reading »

See the article here – 

Will Citizens United Save Bob McDonnell From Prison?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will Citizens United Save Bob McDonnell From Prison?

A GOP Operative Just Got 2 Years in Prison For Breaking Super-PAC Rules

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Department of Justice scored a victory Friday morning in the fight to rein in the campaign finance Wild West that has come with the rise of super-PACs: A GOP operative in Virginia was sentenced to two years in federal prison for breaking a small, but crucial, campaign finance law in the 2012 election. It’s unclear whether this signals a sustained effort by the Justice Department to crack down on campaign finance law violators. But one thing’s for sure: it’s more than the grid-locked Federal Election Commission has done to enforce the law in this area.

There isn’t much that a super PAC can’t do under the 2010 Citizens United ruling. These outfits can raise and spend unlimited cash, soliciting funds from individuals and corporations alike. The one thing that can’t happen is coordination between a super-PAC and a candidate for elected office. And that’s the issue that was at the heart of the Justice Department’s case against GOP operative Tyler Harber, once named a “rising star” by Campaigns & Elections magazine (since revoked), who was sentenced to two years in prison for illegal coordination and lying to the FBI.

Since Citizens United, it’s been fairly clear that rules against coordination were being short-circuited, if not broken outright. Candidates’ political aides have resigned from their campaigns only to resurface at the helm of super PACs supporting that very same candidate; parents and spouses of candidates have created super PACs and pour money in; most significantly, in the run up to 2016, Jeb Bush has merged his campaign with his super PAC, allowing him to raise unlimited amounts of money and hobnob with mega-donors, while hiding behind the excuse that he is not formally a candidate. Campaign finance reformers have cried foul over Bush’s use of this loophole, but the reality is no one is likely to do anything about it. The FEC is, for all intents and purposes, putting itself on the bench this election cycle.

Continue Reading »

Original link – 

A GOP Operative Just Got 2 Years in Prison For Breaking Super-PAC Rules

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A GOP Operative Just Got 2 Years in Prison For Breaking Super-PAC Rules

Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Citizens United Is the Supreme Court’s Worst Ruling

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared at BillMoyers.com.

In an interview with the New Republic, 81-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the current Court’s worst ruling — and the one she would most like to overrule—was Citizens United.

That decision is the one responsible, in large part, for making this midterm election a record breaker in terms of outside spending. And that’s before the really heavy spending comes into play, in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision struck down the limits on how much money corporations and unions can spend in federal elections. Ginsburg, who dissented in the case, explains here why Citizens United is top of her list and tackles the two runners-up.

I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be. So that’s number one on my list. Number two would be the part of the health care decision that concerns the commerce clause. Since 1937, the Court has allowed Congress a very free hand in enacting social and economic legislation. I thought that the attempt of the Court to intrude on Congress’s domain in that area had stopped by the end of the 1930s. Of course health care involves commerce. Perhaps number three would be Shelby County, involving essentially the destruction of the Voting Rights Act. That act had a voluminous legislative history. The bill extending the Voting Rights Act was passed overwhelmingly by both houses, Republicans and Democrats, everyone was on board. The Court’s interference with that decision of the political branches seemed to me out of order. The Court should have respected the legislative judgment. Legislators know much more about elections than the Court does. And the same was true of Citizens United. I think members of the legislature, people who have to run for office, know the connection between money and influence on what laws get passed.

In her wide-ranging interview, she goes on to discuss her concerns for women’s reproductive rights, why she’s not going to step down, despite some calls from the left for her to do so, her scathing dissent on the Hobby Lobby ruling and life as “Notorious R.B.G.”

Read the full interview at The New Republic.

Credit – 

Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Citizens United Is the Supreme Court’s Worst Ruling

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Citizens United Is the Supreme Court’s Worst Ruling