Campaign Finance Refomers: What Now?

Campaign Finance Refomers: What Now?: "

As of Thursday, ExxonMobil is allowed to run election-day phonebanks. The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that corporations should be free to make independent expenditures in political campaigns. The decision overturned most existing campaign finance law and dealt a severe blow to supporters of campaign finance restrictions. But it didn't take reformers by surprise. Groups like Common Cause, Public Campaign, and Change Congress have been anticipating this defeat for months. In a confidential internal memo obtained by Mother Jones last year, Common Cause and Public Campaign warned, 'Without an aggressive media effort, reporters will likely call a bad decision in Citizens United another sign that campaign finance reform is a fools errand.' That effort continued with a massive press call midday Thursday, with the presidents of the top reform groups going on at length about their problems with the decision. 'It is a disaster,' said Nick Nyhart, the president of Public Campaign, told reporters. 'Its an immoral decision that puts the Roberts court on the side of Wall Street and big money lobbyists.' That was typical. 

So what's the reformers' plan? Last month, Mother Jones reported that disparate reform groups had been merging staff, budgets, and agendas to coordinate their efforts to deal with the fallout of the Supreme Court decision and to push for public financing of elections. On Thursdays press call, Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause, confirmed that strategy. 'For the past year weve moved towards having a specific campaign with a campaign structure,' he said. 'A whole host of groups have put together a common staff, a common budget, a common agenda to get the financial resources together and the staffing in place.' Common Cause and Public Campaign, the two older, DC-based groups, combined their campaign finance reform teams late last year to focus their energy on pushing for publicly-funded elections. Theyll be the good cops, playing the Washington 'inside game,' working with Capitol Hill allies like Rep. John Larsen (D-Conn.) to sign up more support for reform. Change Congress, the newer organization founded by Larry Lessig, will play the bad cop, attacking members of Congress who dont support reform and accusing them of corruption. 

No Comments | Post Comment

     

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

A Party Is Not a Movement

A Party Is Not a Movement: "The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it. This is one of the few enduring political axioms, and it explains why the organizations purporting to lead an American progressive 'movement' have yet to build a real movement, much less a successful one."

"Of course, frustrated progressives might be able to forgive the groups who promised different results, had these post-election failures prompted course corrections.

For example, had the left's preeminent groups responded to Democrats' health care capitulations by immediately announcing campaigns against these Democrats, progressives could feel confident that these groups were back to prioritizing a movement agenda. Likewise, had the big antiwar organizations reacted to Obama's Afghanistan escalation plans with promises of electoral retribution, we would know those organizations were steadfastly loyal to their antiwar brand."

read more

"

(Via Truthout - Opinion.)

"Uncivil Discourse"

"Uncivil Discourse": Bill Moyers speaks truth to power. I wish all old guys were this cool!

Bill Maher asked me on his show last week if America is still a great nation. I should have said it's the greatest show on earth. Forget what you learned in civics about the Founding Fathers — we're the children of Barnum and Bailey, our founding con men. Their freak show was the forerunner of today's talk radio.

Enjoy!

A Century-Old Principle: Keep Corporate Money Out of Elections

A Century-Old Principle: Keep Corporate Money Out of Elections: "There are worrying signs that there may well be five votes on the Supreme Court to rule that the ban on corporate contributions violates the First Amendment."

(Via NYT > Editorials.)