Source: Dem Response To Citizens United To Have More GOP Support

By GottaLaff

Via Greg Sargent, yet another Republican is expected to hop on as a sponsor:

[T]he Dem legislative response to the Citizens United decision will be a big, possibly defining, story.

And here’s an interesting little nugget about it: The bill that Dems are planning will have more bipartisan support than expected, a Dem leadership aide confirms.

The legislation is going to be introduced tomorrow by Dem Rep Chris Van Hollen and GOP Rep Mike Castle, the source says, and it is likely to ignite a battle over the influence of corporate and other outside money over our politics.

I wonder how many children are saying they want to be corporations when they grow up. Or if it's okay for same-sex corporations to marry. Or if there are corporations of color.

Greg gives us more, including the scoop on what the legislation includes, here.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. sole contributor to-- & main beneficiary of-- Prop. 16

By GottaLaff

This is one example of how an uninformed electorate can make (potentially) an uninformed decision that would negatively impact my own very state of California:

Under Prop. 16, a one-third minority of voters could thwart the vast majority of disgruntled consumers who want to switch electricity providers and get a rate cut.

And because public entities are barred from spending money to advocate their side but a private utility can fork out unlimited millions, the two-thirds hurdle would be nearly insurmountable.

"The more competition in the electricity industry the better," says Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Assn., which opposes Prop. 16. "There's no reason to make it harder for local utility districts to get started if they can provide electricity at a lower cost than investor-run utilities."

PG&E's two allies in its brazen move are the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Taxpayers' Assn. The utility sits on the board of each group.

The two-thirds vote, they note, is what's required for local special tax increases and bond issues. (School bonds need only 55%.) But that's irrelevant. Taxes aren't an issue in electricity service.

And city or school bonds generally are repaid by all residents through sales or property taxes. Utility borrowing is financed by revenue bonds tied to electricity rates.

PG&E's clever campaign consultants are trying to exploit the public's current mistrust of government and anger about budget deficits.

Unlimited funding, misleading talking points: Yep, all the ingredients for a lopsided campaign. This will, and has, become all too commonplace.

As a people, we better learn to read, educate others, and fight back. Stat.

Midterm Elections Will Cost Nearly $4 Billion, NOT Counting New Corporate Donations

By GottaLaff

Tip of the iceberg:

A new report from the Center for Responsive Politics estimates that this year's midterm elections will cost at least $3.7 billion -- about 30% more than four years ago.

Major caveat: The estimate does not include how much money could come directly from corporations, unions, trade associations or other interest groups stemming from the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited contributions.

But we can't afford health care reform.

One more time: It's Freedom of Speech, not Freedom to Spend.

Top congressional Dems unveil legislation to counter SCOTUS campaign finance ruling

By GottaLaff

They can mitigate their hineys off, but corporations still have truckloads of cash, they're not people, and yet, they'll have a huge impact on elections.

Freedom of speech should not be confused with freedom to spend money:

Among other things, the bill introduced by Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland would require:

– The names of the top five contributors to any organization created for political purposes that purchases advertising to be listed at the end of the ad;

– The top funder of any political advertisement to record a separate "stand-by-your-ad" disclaimer;

– Certain business and unions to establish "political activities" accounts - monitored by the Federal Election Commission - for the purpose of receiving and spending political funds;

– Any political expenditure made by a company to be disclosed within 24 hours on the company's Web site;

– Any political expenditure made by a company to be disclosed to shareholders on a regular basis;

– A ban on corporations and unions coordinating election ads with federal campaigns if those ads promote or oppose a specific candidate.

Foreign companies would be defined in the bill as those with a foreign ownership of 20 percent or more, or those in which a majority of the board of directors is composed of non-U.S. citizens.

In addition, a company would be defined as foreign if its U.S. operations, or its decision-making regarding political activities, is directed by a foreign entity, including a foreign government.

I am Exxon and I approve, and bought, this message and the majority of messages you'll now see.

SCOTUS decision on corporations: "Going to be worse than you can possibly imagine"

By GottaLaff

Michael Hiltzik has a must-read column in today's L.A. Times that explains why the Supreme Court decision morphing corporations into people is, as he says, "worse than you can possibly imagine":

Speculation has been raging over whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent junking of federal campaign spending limits on corporations will be very bad for democracy, or not so bad.

As with many important trends in American society, California was there first, and we have the answer. Thanks to a nakedly cynical $6.5-million ballot campaign launched by our biggest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, we can say this: It's going to be worse than you can possibly imagine. [...]

Corporations can't vote or run for office, and "their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters," [Justice John Paul Stevens] observed. [...]

Proposition 16, in any case, is written broadly to apply to all public power systems. By undermining all competition from public power agencies, it will benefit no one except PG&E and other private utilities. [...]

In reality, it's profoundly anti-democratic: A two-thirds vote is nothing but a tool to thwart the will of the voters by giving an extreme minority an outsized voice.

S. David Freeman, general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the nation's largest municipal utility:

"This is just another attempt by a private utility to inhibit the right of public power to be a competitive yardstick. It's so hurtful of consumers that it would be laughable, except that PG&E's ability to put up brainwashing ads makes it a real threat."
Worse, state law prohibits elected officials and public agencies from spending public funds to oppose a ballot measure. That means any effort to counteract PG&E's bankroll will be crippled from the start.

This is only the beginning, just one example of what we're up against.

Please go read the whole thing.

Focus on the Family to air second ad during Super Bowl pre-game

By GottaLaff

My previous posts on this subject are here (scroll).

So!

One Super Bowl spot wasn't enough.

Nor was collaborating with CBS on writing the ads enough (something that CBS does with no other advertiser).

Now Focus on the Family is getting outright piggy. Their second ad-- yes, second-- will air during the pre-game show, starring the Tebows:

More details on the organizations ads:

Although Focus on the Family won’t reveal its ads’ details, CEO Jim Daly says the original ad was rejected by CBS. In it, Pam Tebow, who was advised by a doctor to have an abortion for medical reasons when pregnant with her son, said, “Both of our lives were at risk.”

“They felt that was too much,” he says. “So we dropped the line. We didn’t fight them.” The word “abortion” is never used.

The ad is “an open discussion on the sanctity of human life — not just the issue of abortion,” Daly says. It was made for less than $100,000 with “a bit of humor in it — in fitting with the Super Bowl theme.”

I bet it's a real laugh riot. Maybe they'll even do a CBS Tebow sit-com spin-off, "The Peoples' Anti-Choice Awards".

Oh, and in the interest of fairness, since CBS won't air this Planned Parenthood pro-choice response ad, TPC will:

Riding Coats-Tails: Dan Coats Tied to Chavez-Connected Oil Company

By GottaLaff

Just what we need more of in the U.S. Senate. What an attractive record:

Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN), who wants to challenge Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) for his old Senate seat, "lobbied for a Texas-based oil and gas company that partnered with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez," Politico reports.

The Hotline notes Coats has also "spent the past several years advocating on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, major health care firms and big corporations."

Mitch McConnell Campaign Accepted Funds From Foreign Bribery Suspects

By GottaLaff

Time for Show and Tell, brought to you by our very own Supreme Court Five:

Since 2005, McConnell has received $21,000 — spread between his campaign and his leadership PAC — from a PAC run by BAE Systems Inc., according to disclosure records examined by TPMmuckraker. BAE Systems Inc. is the American subsidiary of BAE Systems, the world’s second largest defense contractor, headquartered in Britain.

In addition, United Defense Industries, another defense contractor bought by BAE in 2005, reportedly pledged half a million dollars to the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, a political science foundation that the senator created.

McConnell has been good to be BAE, which owns a facility in Louisville, Kentucky. For fiscal year 2010, the senator requested earmarks for the company worth a combined $17 million.

BAE is hardly a squeaky clean corporate citizen, either. The Justice Department is conducting an ongoing investigation (pdf)into allegations that the company bribed members of the Saudi Royal family, including the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, in support of a mulit-billion dollar, decades-long deal to barter arms for oil.

You can read the whole thing here.

Mitch McLipless, this is what we mean by corporations buying elections. Even foreign ones.

H/t: Gr8RDH

VIDEO- Raging Grannies Rip CBS Anti-Choice Super Bowl Ad: "Corporate Bull S***"

By GottaLaff



I lerve these women!

Raging Grannies of South Florida tear CBS a new one, in no uncertain terms, over its decision to run an anti-choice ad, a commercial from the Christian right-wing extremist group, Focus On The Family, during next Sunday's Super Bowl. This savage song parody, set to the tune of "Three Blind Mice", is part of the Women's Media Center "What Does CBS Stand For?" campaign .

Straightforward, to the point, honest. Now that's Must-See Tee Vee (apologies to NBC).

Previous posts on this topic here.

VIDEO: Congresswoman Donna Edwards Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Undo SCOTUS Ruling

By GottaLaff



Via an e-mail:

Twelve days ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling striking at the heart of our democracy. The Court disregarded more than a century of precedent and ruled that our Constitution prevents the American people from regulating corporate money in our elections and politics. That’s wrong and we don’t buy it.

And twelve days ago, we stood up to fight back. Thousands of you joined us in our call for a constitutional amendment to defend our democracy and to restore the First Amendment to its intended purpose: to protect people, not corporations.

And, today, Congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland has introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Court’s ruling. Joined by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, the Edwards amendment will ensure that Congress and the states may prohibit corporations from spending their funds for political activity.

CLICK HERE to watch this interview with Congresswoman Edwards discussing her constitutional amendment.

And CLICK HERE to see our press release applauding her introduction of this amendment.

The Framers of the Constitution intended the First Amendment to protect the rights of citizens, everyday people, not corporations. Corporations are not people. They are artificial entities created by the state with state-based advantages. In fact, the recent ruling will certainly drown out the voices of the very citizens the First Amendment was meant to protect.

We as a nation have amended the United States Constitution before. Twenty-seven times. That history includes amendments in response to US Supreme Court rulings directly threatening the democratic process. The Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC demands a similar constitutional amendment response.

But to do this, we need to build a broad-based democracy movement. You can help make this happen.

Ways to Get Involved

* Forward this email to at least 10 or more of your friends urging that they join us and sign the petition.
* Contact your Member of Congress in the House of Representatives and United States Senate, about the Edwards amendment.
* Organize a local amendment committee.
* Donate to support this campaign.
* Follow Free Speech for People on Twitter and Facebook to receive the latest news on the campaign.
* CLICK HERE to find out other ways to get involved.

Together, we will reclaim our First Amendment and our democracy.

Thank you.

The Free Speech for People Campaign

http://FreeSpeechforPeople.org

H/t: D_Klein3

Sen. Kerry backs changing Constitution to deal with Supreme Court decision

By GottaLaff

I remember Thom Hartmann saying this is what it would take:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Tuesday threw his support behind a constitutional amendment aimed at gutting the impact of a Supreme Court decision lifting key restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

“I think we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear once and for all that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals,” Kerry said during a Senate Rules Committee hearing.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) is the only other senator so far to back the idea of taking on the Herculean task of passing a constitutional amendment in response to the high court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling.

I can smell the obstruction from here.

Most opponents of the high court’s decision regard passing a constitutional amendment as a long-term, long-shot goal because it requires the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states to ratify it. Many Republican members of Congress support the Supreme Court’s decision, a high hurdle to overcome in amending the Constitution.

However, look what the polls say:

Sixty-six percent of Democrats either “moderately” or “strongly” disagreed with the ruling, but so did 63 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of independents.

That's nothing to sneeze at.

Bless you.

Much more here.

Sen. Al Franken Announces Bill to Keep Foreign Interests Out of Elections

By GottaLaff

Al Franken swoops in again! He's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, I like him:

The "American Elections Act of 2010" was developed in coordination with Professor David Schultz of Hamline University School of Business in Minnesota.

"The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was an attack on democracy and fair elections," said Professor Schultz. "It undid laws seeking to regulate corporations across the country and in Minnesota that go back over 60 years. As a result of it corporate money will flood into Minnesota, threatening the basic integrity of our elections and the power of citizens to control their own government. Senator Franken's bill is an important first step in addressing Citizens United and preventing money from further destroying our elections in Minnesota."

More at Crooks and Liars.

That sound you hear is the rattling inside Alito's head as he's shaking it back and forth while muttering to himself.

VIDEO: Leahy rips Supreme Court

By GottaLaff



Patrick Leahy talks back to members of the Supreme Corporation, er, Court.

Cartoon of the Day

Click to enlarge, via.

CBS's Super Bowl Ad Malfunction

By GottaLaff

Last night I posted Lippy McFakeBlog's latest ghost written Facebook entry defending an anti-choice Super Bowl ad.

I then updated that she got her way, CBS caved, and they'll air the controversial ad.

Via the L.A. Times:

[M]edia analysts are predicting that as much as $500 million in corporate money could flood this year's political campaigns, unleashing a torrent of issue advertising that will force TV executives to weigh the ever-shifting debate about which commercials cross the line.

The CBS Super Bowl commercial, sponsored by the evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family, features University of Florida football star Tim Tebow and his missionary mother, Pam, discussing her decision 23 years ago to continue with her pregnancy despite complications.

How many abortions do you suppose any given corporation has had? Do they use birth control? Does a corporation need parental consent?

The network nonetheless finds itself in a difficult position because, several years ago, CBS rejected ads -- some intended for the Super Bowl -- from left-leaning organizations, including MoveOn.org, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the United Church of Christ, which advocates gay rights.

See how fair and balanced the new and improved free speech is?

Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center:

When CBS rejected issue advertisements by liberal groups, George W. Bush was president and a majority of the Federal Communications Commission members were Republicans. Moreover, the network already had had a painful run-in with regulators after it was slapped with stiff fines because Janet Jackson's breast was briefly exposed during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

Critics of CBS' policy shift said the network succumbed to financial pressures.

"They are more concerned about their bottom line than fair play," Greene said.

And that's the way it is.

But if it worked for Haiti donations...

By GottaLaff

It was a snap! I pushed a few numbers, entered a word, and bingo! Money went to a cause I supported.

I even said to Mr. Laffy, "Wouldn't this be an easy way to donate to a candidate?"

Here's my answer:

Campaign Donations by Text Not Yet Possible

With Americans donating to the Haiti relief effort at unprecedented numbers through text messaging, Nathan Gonzales looks at the legal hurdles that prevent congressional candidates from using the same technology to solicit campaign contributions.

Gonzales goes on:

[C]ollecting political contributions via text messaging may run afoul of the law because corporations are prohibited from being conduits for contributions. In order for the transaction to work, cell carriers such as Verizon, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, or AT&T would have to collect the contribution on the bill and then write a check to the particular campaign.

If only corporations were people. Oh, wait.

Let's recap.... corporations aren't allowed to be conduits, but they can contrib...?

Good thing we're being so strict with 'em then, huh? All that oversight should pay off.

Sarcasm.

Now NY Times is saying it too: Tea Party Convention Unraveling

By GottaLaff

Validation:

The New York Times reports a Tea Party convention "billed as the coming together of the grass-roots groups that began sprouting up around the country a year ago is unraveling as sponsors and participants pull out to protest its expense and express concerns about 'profiteering.'"

"The convention's difficulties highlight the fractiousness of the Tea Party groups, and the considerable suspicions among their members of anything that suggests the establishment."

I went into that in more depth here yesterday. Spinning like Disneyland Tea Cups: Dizzy, stumbling, pointing fingers. A sight to behold.

Tea Partiers are spinning like a Disneyland Tea Cup Ride

By GottaLaff

Tea party” demonstrators stage a weekly protest at an intersection in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (Josh Ritchie / South Florida Sun-Sentinel / December 12, 2009)

The Tea Baggers are here, there, everywhere, upside down, right side up, spinning 'round and 'round, and getting a little dizzy in the process:

The movement is far from a well-disciplined army. Its pivot from protesting to politics has been fraught with internal disputes, turf wars and lawsuits. It has continued to struggle with its relationship to the Republican Party [...]

In Florida, tea party leaders have filed a lawsuit accusing a lawyer of hijacking their movement.

Other Tea Baggers aren't thrilled with people pointing fingers at them for being BFF with the GOP "establishment" and dating Wall Street. There's a simple remedy for that: Break up with 'em. Appearances, appearances... tsk, tsk.

Rule One: One should never flirt with those who rip them off.

Plans for a National Tea Party Convention in February drew early attention for its keynote speaker -- former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- and its gesture toward unity. The event, planned by Nashville attorney Judson Phillips, bears all the trappings of a political convention, with lobster tail on the menu and an invitation aimed at "delegates" representing tea party groups from around the country.

But activists balked at the cost -- $560 a ticket, not including a hotel room for the weekend. The price was necessitated by the cost of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and speakers' fees, Phillips said.

Wowzers, that sound awfully corporate and not-grassrootsy!

Oh, but I bet Barbie McLipSchmutz is donating her time to the cause she's so touchy feely snuggy with.

Palin's fee is more than $100,000, with travel expenses, according to a source familiar with the booking.

Oops.

After the hubbub erupted, Palin suggested she wouldn't keep the fee, saying she would use the money to "contribute to campaigns, candidates and issues that will help our country."

So she quit her own fee. Nice save.

The criticism only mounted as [Nashville attorney Judson Phillips] acknowledged that the convention, like his for-profit social networking site Tea Party Nation, is a money-making venture.

There are some habits conservatives just can't break. Profit-taking is one of them. That must be what they mean by conserving.

Antonio Hinton of the Knoxville Tea Party:

"That convention has nothing to do with the tea party movement, as far as I'm concerned. I love Sarah Palin. I don't believe she knows who she's speaking to."

She never does. Nor what she's speaking about. But I digress...

Judson Phillips:

"The people who are involved in this movement, one of the constants is they really don't like authority that much," he said. "You go up to someone and tell them they're going to do something and they say, 'Who says? No, I'm not.' They don't want some big organization in Washington or anywhere else telling them what to do."

Wait. Washington is a big organization.... or a series of them that comprise a big one. Why do the Tea Baggers want to elect people to go to the very place they want to dismantle? Then they become their own enemy.

Fear of Republican takeover is also a persistent thread in tea party disputes.

So the answer is to takeover the takeover. To become the Republicans they're taking over. To become the "establishment" in Tea Bag clothing.

[The] Tea Party Express filed its most recent financial disclosure form: It raised more than $1.3 million from July to November, with the vast majority going to the consulting firm.

So they're just like their own hijackers.

FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe is blunt about his hope that the tea party movement will "take over the Republican Party. [...]

"We have people in positions of power claiming to be our leaders and mischaracterizing us," said Michael Kelly of We the People N.C. in Charlotte. "It makes people mad."

Which goes back to my point about going in circles. I'm dizzy just trying to follow all this convoluted finger pointing.. Imagine how they feel.

And imagine how the genuinely angry, ordinary people with legitimate gripes feel.

Shallow Thoughts: People Are Corporations, Too edition

By GottaLaff

Today's Shallow Thought:

If we could get the Supreme Court to rule that people are corporations, then we'd have us some real justice.

That was today's Shallow Thought. Thank you for wading in.

A conservative leap by Supreme Court

By GottaLaff

I often use the original title of an article to adhere to the original intent of the author.

The L.A. Times title to this piece was "A bold conservative step by Supreme Court". I didn't want to use that title, because the world "bold" has too positive a connotation, and "step" was too understated.

There was a lot more to the piece than this, but here are a few takeaway snippets:

Roberts has shown that when he has the support of moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he is willing to move boldly on behalf of conservative causes. Long-standing laws and precedents need not stand in the way. [...]

If the Democrats find a way to enact a healthcare law that requires all Americans to have health insurance or else pay a tax, it will face a sure constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court. And there is less reason to be sure such a challenge would fail. [...]

The court's ruling jolted Congress, particularly Democrats. They will have to think twice before supporting legislation that could provoke corporations or industries to target them for defeat in November. [...]

But never has Roberts gone so far to reshape the law as he did in the campaign finance decision, raising questions about what will happen the rest of this year and in the years ahead.
Last week's ruling may be the first of several to reshape the 1st Amendment in a more conservative direction.

"They will have to think twice before supporting legislation that could provoke corporations or industries to target them for defeat in November."

Read that again. And again.

And that is part of what led to Why I Cried.