Campaign Finance

By David Swanson

While new disclosure laws on corporate political spending are not needed to see the forest, they may be required for seeing the trees. Knowing which corporations funded what won't, on its own, end or reduce the corruption. And the big picture of corporate spending cannot easily be hidden. Already, pre-Citizens United, it dominated Washington. And the threat alone of massively increased spending is corrupting Washington further already. But those who, for various reasons, think we need to see the details, or would be helped by seeing the details, require new legislation.

By David Swanson, FreeSpeechForPeople

The damage from the Supreme Court's decision in "Citizens United v. FEC" continues to spread as feared. Newly emboldened corporations are suing to overturn state laws that restrict corporate spending on politics:

"A pro-natural resource development group [how's that for spin?] and a Bozeman painting company asked a Helena District Court on Monday to strike down Montana’s 1912 ban on corporate donations and expenditures to political campaigns to comply with a January U.S. Supreme Court ruling."

Harry Hanbury has a story that any videographer or blogger would love. He created a video of Congresswoman Donna Edwards taking steps to amend the Constitution to restore our democracy following assault by the Supreme Court. A woman you've never heard of named Jessica Sharp saw the video and decided to take action herself. She had never organized a rally or even attended many, but she put together an event at the state capitol of Maryland that inspired every interested activist group and state legislator to join in. Jessica has sparked a movement in Maryland that is inspiring others around the country. So, Harry made a new video, about Jessica:

Kucinich is right here, and Greenwald wrong, and here's why:

By David Swanson

Pulling pranks on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is just too easy. The Yes Men held a press conference this week pretending to speak for the chamber and fooled the journalists in the room, because "We are no longer going to promote the destruction of the earth's climate" is such a compelling position that it's very tempting to imagine that any human being could adopt it.

But Tom Donohue and his chamber take the opposite position and have for years. William Kovacs, a senior vice president at the chamber, told the LA Times he'd like to stage a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" to deny, not evolution, but human-made climate change.

By David Swanson

I was invited to speak on a (foreign, of course) television show about the money that U.S. presidential candidates are accepting and how it affects them, so I took a look at the latest numbers on OpenSecrets.org. The television producers only wanted to discuss the three Democrats and three Republicans they called the "leading" candidates. Are these the leading candidates in the polls (which at this early stage cannot predict votes) or in fundraising (which is neither voting nor [pace the Supreme Court] speech)? Well, here's the thing: you can't distinguish. The candidates' rankings in terms on money and polling are the same, at least for the Democrats. But here's the question: which is the chicken and which is the egg?