Campaign Finance

By David Swanson

The DISCLOSE Act, a bill passed by the House that would regulate corporate election spending was blocked in the Senate on Thursday by a filibuster -- momentum is building to eliminate that anti-democratic tool.

And momentum is building, as well, for reforms of our campaign finance system that go beyond what the DISCLOSE Act would do. On Tuesday, Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, proposed a new Constitutional Amendment that he described as a response to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case earlier this year. That ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited money from their general funds to elect or defeat political candidates.

For today's $5 Friday I gave my $5 to the cause of getting money out of politics, dollars out of protected speech, and corporations out of the list of being who get to have human rights at http://movetoamend.org Go forth and do likewise.

By David Swanson

David Segal is a candidate for Congress from Providence, R.I. who is not only running as a real person, but running against permitting corporations to claim the rights of persons.  Recently the Providence Journal reported:

By David Swanson

A new international survey rates U.S. federal and state laws the worst legislative value in the world. The study considered laws' impact on human lives, and the price paid for laws in campaign contributions, issue advertising, lobbying, ear marks, and bribes. While these expenses have provided an unequaled return on investment for some U.S. and international corporations, their value for the U.S. public turns out to be negative, and more severely negative the greater the expense. The study was conducted by an imaginary U.S. media outlet over a period of 60 seconds, during which it extracted its rostrum from its rectum.

By David Swanson

Corporate persons aren't like you and I. They have eternal life and legal immunity. No death, no taxes, no joy or pain or moral feeling. No sweat and no tears. When they move their mouths, out come dollars, and we call those dollars speech. But when they stub their toe and bleed, out comes thick black goo in a gusher that could turn the ocean into a dead black pit, and we call that goo petroleum.

At the 10:22 point in this video, GRIT tv host Laura Flanders takes up the topic of the Supreme Court, corporate power, and the "Citizens United" ruling. Guest John Bonifaz, the director of Free Speech for People discusses the results we're already seeing from that ruling, how it impacts corporations, unions, and real flesh-and-blood people, (including how it has already impacted our thinking) and what needs to be done.

By David Swanson

By David Swanson

Eighty-five percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans tell pollsters when asked that they oppose the Supreme Court's decision in "Citizens United" which lifted limits on corporate political spending. I'm willing to bet that at least those same percentages would tell you the decision violates the U.S. Constitution. And I would bet that if you explained to people that the CU decision was based on the ideas that spending money on elections is speech and that corporations claim the First Amendment right to free speech which was meant for people, the numbers would increase.

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?