100 Proof Politics - HuffingtonPost Article

How to Talk About Citizens United

In response to the recent one year anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which overturned bans on corporate cash in elections, many friends on the progressive side of the aisle are drawing attention to this issue, talking about the impact in the 2010 elections, and discussing solutions to the problem. I promise to do none of those things here.

If you're reading this article, you probably already know most of the story of Citizens United and know that it's a bad thing for our democracy. The question is how to talk about Citizens United in a way that convinces other people to realize this too. So, a few fellow message gurus, wordsmiths, and myself put our heads together and here's what we came up with.

---

1. The Supremes Got It Wrong on Citizens United -- America v. Corporate Goliaths

The conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court argued in this case that corporate goliaths have a Constitutional right to spend unlimited money in our elections. Here's why they are wrong:

Money is property, not speech.
Corporations are property, not citizens.
Citizens have voting rights, property rights, and free speech rights. Property has none of these.

This is the same court that infamously declared in 2000's Bush v. Gore that individual citizens arenot guaranteed the right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. When our government defends the rights of corporate goliaths to influence elections but derides the rights of everyday Americans to vote in them, something is rotten in the state of democracy.

If money is speech and corporations are citizens, then it is not long before government becomes the exclusive property of well-funded corporations. Our government is not a thing to be owned, except by the people who constitute it -- that is the definition of self-determination.

We, the people, must get private money out of our public elections.

2. Citizens United Turns Elections Into Auctions

We all know there's already too much money in elections as it is, but Citizens United changes the law so that even more money pours into the process, which essentially means that elections go to the highest bidder. That's not democracy; I don't know what it's called, but it ain't democracy.

Companies are built to make money, and the government is how we make laws. In a capitalist democracy, we need each side of that equation to stay in their lane. Buying elections should be just as illegal as nationalizing industries.

Between a corporations' responsibility to make money and serve the bottom line and an elected officials' oath to uphold the Constitution and serve the public interest, there is a conflict of interest. Elections should not be a part of some corporations' investment portfolio; elections should be how we choose leaders in our country by voting.

When politicians are bought at auction rather than chosen by election, we've lost a lot of what it means to live in a free democracy.

3. Buying Votes Should Be Illegal

Whether buying bulk or by the vote, buying votes is and should be illegal. We prevent the purchasing of votes in order to keep those with vast amounts of money from exercising improper influence upon the government. This also happens to be why we prohibit bribery and graft.

These existing and obvious laws show that we all know those with wealth may attempt, and have in the past attempted, to purchase elections and votes. We all know that is wrong and against the law.

Under Citizens United, it is still a felony to buy a single vote but it's perfectly legal to buy a whole election. If you think that is democracy, then you're doing it wrong.

Is Citizens United simply a matter of free speech? No, some speech is illegal and should be. Libel, slander, verbal assault, hate speech, blackmail, bribery, and that which encourages 'imminent lawless action' are all forms of speech subject to prohibition by law. Corruption through the influence of corporate contributions to political campaigns should be added to this list of villainy.

After all, buying votes at the ballot box and in Congress should be illegal.

---

And for the moral of the story:

It's time we return to government of, by, and for the people, not government of, bought, and paid for by special interests. If big businesses want to invest in our government, let them pay their fair share of taxes rather than paying for politicians who'll write them special tax breaks.

I hope some of these talking points can be put to good use when debating with your swing-voting neighbor who has no idea what "corporate personhood" means or when speaking to your gadsen-flag waving Uncle back home who happens to hate all this money in politics too.

So, did I keep my promise? Well, 2-out-of-3 ain't bad.

Many thanks to John Neffinger of KNP Communications & Drew Westen of Westen Strategies for contributing to my thoughts on this very important issue.

This article was originally posted on HuffingtonPost.com 1.26.10. Join the conversation by clicking here.

Follow us on Twitter: @100proofpolitic

100 Proof Politics Op-Ed

Trojan Elephant: When Citizens United Attacks

More than Tea Parties & Mama Grizzlies, last year’s election will be remembered in history as an electoral atrocity perpetrated by the Citizens United v. FEC decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. For Progressives looking for answers post-election, Citizens United is the elephant in the room.

This week is the one year anniversary of this landmark decision that, boiled down into its essence, allows any organization or company to spend unlimited dollars on TV ads in the final weeks of federal elections.

Snuck into the gates of our American democracy under the guise of 1^st Amendment free speech, the trap was sprung in 2010 with millions of dollars of attack ads targeting vulnerable Congressional candidates in a televised October surprise of historic proportions. The devastating consequences range from a lost Democratic majority to the very real prospect of a loss of American self-determination.

With conservative institutions lining up to support the Citizens United suit (Chamber of Commerce and NRA to name a few), it should have clear from the start that the right-wing was up to no good. When the conservative activist judges on the Supreme Court handed down their 5-4 decision, Karl Rove and his cabal of conservative political operatives quickly sprang into action.

Seemingly overnight, Republican allies embraced the new playbook and funneled millions of dollars in anonymous donations into these brand new conservative organizations, with wonderfully euphemistic names such as “American Crossroads”, “60+ Association”, “Center for Individual Freedom”, & of course, “Citizens United”.

While conservative groups seemed to be anticipating it (wink, wink Scalia), the strategic value of Citizens United was completely lost on the Democratic side (shocking, I know). In a gesture that was equivalent to ‘opening the gates of the city’, some liberal and progressive organizations (ACLU & AFL-CIO to name a few) even supported the case and then did not bother to effectively utilize the newly available capacities.

Amazingly, the Democratically-controlled Congress simultaneously failed to pass a law requiring donor transparency (DISCLOSE Act) or set up an independent expenditure infrastructure to compete with conservatives on TV (except for a noble last-minute attempt by some Progressives to create a ‘firewall’ around salvageable districts). In an act of striking cowardice, Democrats do not even vote on any electoral reform that would retain the century-old firewall between corporate money and public elections nor do they even make a passing glance at the much bolder Fair Elections Now Act (FENA).

In the top 10 of independent expenditures in 2010, 7 groups are conservative (or Republican) and 50% of these did not exist prior to 2010. Conservatives turned a $40 million deficit in 2008 into a $100 million advantage in 2010, reversing the typical independent expenditure dominance by liberal issue advocacy groups. Out of $350 million spent on independent expenditures, over $302 million is spent on TV ads, the majority of which were scathingly negative attack ads by conservative “issue advocacy” groups (If you hate negative attack ads, then you really hate Citizens United). The results of the 2010 elections are a direct result of these independent expenditures.

Never was an act of political cowardice so swiftly rewarded with the promise of electoral defeat. Congress goes from 255 Democrats & 179 Republicans to 190 Democrats & 242 Republicans in one election. The Democrats in the Senate hang on by a thread, which inevitably will be lost in 2012 according to the current common sense. This Congress paid for what they got, and let it be known that cowardice has its consequences.

Now, we live with the aftermath of the electoral carnage created when Citizens United attack. Only one year later, the devastating consequences are obvious: a Republican Speaker of the House (makes me all weepy), every member of Congress is on notice they can be electorally assaulted by any offended special interest (to the tune of millions), and a Presidential election that will be determined by unlimited anonymous donations funneled into non-stop negative attack ads (Fired up! Ready to go!).

This Trojan Elephant is still roaming freely inside the gates of our American democracy, destroying every last sentiment of self-determination left among the American population. In a country where unlimited private contributions are legally allowed, it is not long before citizens reject the notion that their votes control the country’s system of elections. Votes must once again become the primary determinate of U.S. elections, not dollars.

Money is property, not speech. Corporations are property, not citizens. We, the people, must get private money out of our public elections. On January 21^st, the one year anniversary of this despicable judicial coup, spread the word and stand united with American citizens everywhere to call for the reversal of the Citizens United decision.

This op-ed cross-posted from DailyKos.com on 01/18/11. Join the conversation on this topic by clicking here.