3/5s of Texas Senate unlikely to approve of this blog post

-- Chris Hooks, Texas Observer, on the demise of the two-thirds rule in the state's upper chamber yesterday.  Just go read the whole thing.  The Chron has the fallout.

Democrats strongly opposed the change, arguing it will bring unintended consequences: Instead of 21 votes, just 19 will be required to cancel public hearings on bills, to waive public notice of committee meetings, to waive cost estimates known as "fiscal notes" that are required on bills, even to waive a rule that now requires bills to be held for 24 hours before they come to a vote of the full Senate.

"It will also be easier to waive a rule that bars lobbyists from the (Senate) floor, that allows us to take action against a senator who accepts bribes," said state Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin. 

Yep, elections have consequences, and those who sat the last one out are in the canoe going over the falls along with everybody else.  Things will just have to get a whole lot worse before they get better.  If po' folks and women and minorities are willing to let old, white, property-owning slaveholders conservatives do all the voting for everybody, then they get what they deserve.  On some level the whining about "my vote doesn't matter" is just a poor excuse for being too stupid/lazy to pay attention to what's important.

We're waiting for 71% of Texans to figure out they're getting fucked over, and I'm afraid they may not ever do so, no matter how much they get pestered with proof.  Idiocracy is turning into a documentary, and not five centuries in the future but right before our eyes.

If someone who doesn't vote finds themselves in jail because they took out a payday loan they couldn't afford, or finds herself pregnant with no option other than giving birth, or slowly realizes that the school his kids go to is shit, or suddenly notices that everybody at the mall is walking around strapped with a gun, then why should I care about those concerns?  Why should I spend my spare time in the spring and summer and fall calling them and visiting their house, begging them to vote?  Why should I care more about them than they do for themselves, their families, their children?

Let them go play games on their phones or work three jobs at $7 dollars and change an hour or wear a $200 jersey to a $150 football game (that's on the low end, mind you).  They want to take a stand about deflated footballs as if that's the most pressing national issue today?  Go ahead on.  The worm has turned for everybody now.  Who am I to object if they want to dress up in a different costume every weekend and play pretend?  Maybe that is better than focusing on what's going on in the real world, after all.  

It's okay by me if they think they need both a Redbox and a Netflix subscription AND went to see American Sniper last weekend (to cheer).  Come the next war, it won't be any of my kids having to fight it because they have no other career options.  It's a free country, somebody said.  PT Barnum was right about the birth rates of suckers.  It's on them to figure out who's the screwer and the screwee, and which one they are.

On a more humorous note...

--Alan Grayson and his ex are, ah, in the news for all the wrong reasons.

A trial to determine whether U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson's wife committed bigamy when she wed the congressman has been delayed because she required emergency surgery to remove breast implants.

I would have thought that Grayson was more intelligent than to have married someone like that.

-- A bill to ban abortion after twenty weeks in the United States (you know, same as it is now in Texas) failed in Congress last night because some Republicans objected to the rape clause it contained.

But they ran into objections from women and other Republican lawmakers unhappy that the measure limited exemptions for victims of rape or incest to only those who had previously reported those incidents to authorities.

The rebellious lawmakers argued that that would put unfair pressure on women who often feel shame or fear retaliation if they report those assaults.

In a complication GOP leaders were not able to resolve, they then ran into objections from anti-abortion groups and lawmakers when they discussed eliminating the reporting requirements.

See, it's the old "honest rape", "legitimate rape", forcible rape definitions bunching them up.  If a 12-year-old gets pregnant from being raped by her uncle but doesn't tell the police about it, then she cannot get an abortion after 20 weeks.  That's what they got stuck on.  Really.  Some GOPers actually think that's wrong.

It turns on a very simple premise for conservatives: it is God's will that she conceived after being raped, and defiance of God's will not to give birth to that child.  Strangely enough, there seem to be some Republicans elected to Congress in 2014 who disagree.

Elections. Have. Consequences.  I think I can get a supermajority to support that.

The fifth anniversary of Citizens United

Is our democratic republic better off now than it was five years ago?  Most Americans don't think so.

Specifically regarding the Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision from 2010, respondents were told:

In response, 80% of Americans opposed the decision and 18% supported it. Although Republicans (72%) were less opposed to the decision than Democrats (82%), it was Independents (84%) most opposed to the decision.

Neither do most of the so-called experts.  In the face of unrelenting negativity about our political system, I usually need a laugh, so let's check in with Al Franken.

I love anniversaries of many occasions. I love birthdays, which are perhaps the most fun kind of anniversary. And every year Franni and my wedding Anniversary is a really, really big deal. When you’ve been married for 39 years, it certainly oughta be.

But the 5th Anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United is coming up later this month. Corporations, special interest groups, and people like the Koch brothers are probably beside themselves with happiness and preparing their 5 year (wooden?) anniversary gifts (I believe silverware is the modern gift).

But let me tell you — that’s one anniversary I will never, ever celebrate.

Citizens United has taken a place among the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. It created just the kind of opportunity special interest groups and shadowy billionaires had been hoping for – a legal way to funnel tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars into American elections. And in many cases, the actors are completely anonymous.

Consider the numbers. 2008 was the last presidential election year before Citizens United, and outside groups spent about $338 million. In 2012 — the first presidential election of the Citizens United era — outside groups spent a staggering $1.03 billion on elections, and nearly all of that increase came from so-called “independent expenditures.”

The Supreme Court based its decision on the idea that spending by outside groups, including corporations, will not and cannot give rise to corruption — or even to the appearance of corruption. The Court shred decades of established law with that conclusion. And follow-up cases like SpeechNow.org v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC have led us even further down the unlimited-corporate-spending rabbit hole.

It’s been five years. In those five years, we’ve seen our elections get nastier, and we’ve watched the American people slide from skepticism of Washington to outright contempt. And I think they have every right to be upset — corporations pour money into politics, and the policy discussion takes a decidedly pro-corporate tilt, while the voices of middle class families are drowned out. If that’s not corruption, or at least the appearance of corruption, then I don’t know what is.

As long as Citizens United remains on the books, any campaign finance reforms will be half-measures. We will be lopping off the leaves of the weed, while its roots sink deeper and deeper.

So how do we get rid of Citizens United? Glad you asked.

1. We can wait until the Supreme Court overturns the case themselves. Which isn’t likely to happen. So let’s forget that.
2. Congress can pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to overturn the effects of Citizens United. This is probably the best option, but it’s also going to take a long time to get through. We’re still working on it. But in the meantime –
3. YOU could remind Congress how hard we’re willing to work to overturn Citizens United. We’ve already got more than 631,600 signatures on our petition. If your name isn’t on there, here’s where you go to add it.

Citizens United has got to go, and we can’t rest until the job’s done. Until then, here’s to hoping that Citizens United doesn’t make it to its candy/iron anniversary.

I like to call the constitutional amendment that would overturn CU the "Political Consultants Retirement Act".  Just think: no more Karl Roves, or Dave Carneys, or Allen Blakemores.  Campos -- and all the rest of these, from Houston to Austin to Washington -- would have to find a real job.

That's what they call a win-win, people.

Of course our broadcast media corporations, without this steady flow of advertising revenue, would be in an even bigger world of hurt than the professional political prostitutes.  Would it be a bad thing, however, if they had to reinvent themselves without breast-augmented, too-tight-top wearing weather forecasters or male model news readers (from six years ago, predating CU and intentional snark aside).  The beefcake and cheesecake and the reporting of it is almost out of control.  If you want higher ratings, station managers, just go ahead and have them read the news in the buff (NSFW, duh).  Dispense with the titillation and slide one seat over to soft porn, for crying out loud.

We'll get better mainstream media if we get the political money out of it as well.  We're now up to win-win-win.  Do you need any more reasons?  How about this news, via Crooks and Liars, about Charles and David Koch and the way they're celebrating the anniversary this weekend.

Four leading Republican presidential prospects are expected to appear this weekend in the California desert before an exclusive gathering of rich conservatives convened by the Koch brothers’ political operation, several sources tell POLITICO.

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida, and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin received coveted invitations to speak to the vaunted network assembled by the billionaire industrialist megadonors Charles and David Koch, the sources said.

The meeting, set to be held at a Palm Springs hotel, is the annual winter gathering of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the nonprofit group that oversees the network of fiscally conservative groups formed with help from the Kochs and their operatives.

None of the White House prospects invited to the meeting this weekend responded to questions about whether they planned to attend and, if so, what they planned to discuss. A spokesman for Freedom Partners declined to comment on the function, which is closed to the press.

No surprise that in addition to the Sheldon primary, there's now a Koch party that every Republican who's anybody wants to attend.  Or that the biggest beneficiary of CU on the left -- just barely left, for certain -- is Hillary Clinton.

All that free speech is bound to be just peachy for democracy.  You ready now?