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?

Scattershooting while waiting for something to come on teevee

-- Will you be watching the coronation of Coathanger Ken this morning or the State of the Union this evening?  Or both?

With more angry conservative Congressional representatives in the House (and Senate) than ever, try to imagine how Obama's tax cut proposal is going to be received.  "You lie" is likely to be remembered as a peck on the cheek after tonight.

And don't miss Joni "Make 'em Squeal" Ernst's response, either.  The other Republican responses might be fun, but I'll read about them tomorrow rather than watch them tonight.  Between Greg Abbott and Rep. Curt Clawson, my toxicity detector can only red-line so many times in one twelve-hour period.

Update: Here's the speech Obama would be giving tonight if he were brutally honest.  Everybody (Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, independent) should read it.

--The Wilmore Report The Nightly Show debuted last night to decent reviews.

“The Oscar nominations are out, and they’re so white, a grand jury decided not to indict them!”

Conservative viewers will appreciate that he got in a dig at Al Sharpton.

-- The inevitable backlash against the conservative slobbering over American Sniper is on.  It's already one of the highest-grossing films of the year -- in both red and blue states -- after its first weekend at the box office.  I haven't seen it yet, but I am pretty sure that I won't be able to ascribe either hero or coward status to Chris Kyle.  He suffered a lot of PTSD himself, particularly public delusions of grandeur away from the battlefield that have been debunked.  I think his is the premier cautionary tale of the dangers associated with sending young men and women to war even once, but certainly repeatedly.

We shouldn't do that again, but we especially should not do so if we cannot take care of our injured veterans after they return home.  And that includes their psychological wounds.

-- Selma is the movie I'm going to see first, however.  It has had its own controversies, truth-telling versus artistic license being the main one.  Having read enough about the interpretive disagreements involved, I'm also going to watch it without judgment.  Let's just keep in mind that this sort of thing isn't quite over yet in America.

(Update: Some people are still living with the damage they endured.)

-- Several US law enforcement agencies are now equipped with radar that can see what's going on inside your home.  Do you feel safe yet?

At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.

Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.

With each passing day, I feel less concerned about my megadata being surreptitiously collected, my e-mail and text and calls being monitored, and my cell phone being tricked by the cops while participating in a peaceful protest.

--  Yeah, we're all spending less at the pump but we're paying more at the grocery store.  Even giving the chickens more room to stretch their wings is pushing the price of eggs north.  As a conflicted carnivore, I will gladly pay that.

The MLK Day Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance commemorates the life of Martin Luther King Jr. today and welcomes any progress on moving his Dream closer to reality.

Off the Kuff offers some thoughts on emphasizing local elections for the next cycle or two.

lightseeker, back from his sabbatical at Texas Kaos, re-examines the state of the Democratic Party and the need for and challenges to grow its voter base, in The Great Progressivism Debate, Part I.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson grimaces at the taste of the rotten fruit of one party rule in Texas. See the corruption inherent in the system?

Texas Leftist kicked off his coverage of the 84th Legislative Session with a new blog series. Big Government Texas is a catalogue of the endless hypocrisy demonstrated by Texas' TEApublican CONservative leaders. Check out Part 1 and Part 2 of the series.

Texas Republicans clearly love their cronies' profits more than they care about the safety of our workers. CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme mourns along with those missing an actual fighter for workers and Texas children.

Handicapping the race for Houston mayor this early in the cycle is a dirty job, but PDiddie at Brains and Eggs did it anyway.

Bluedaze asks North Texans to make their voices heard at the EPA public hearing in Arlington on the proposed guidelines for controlling ozone.

Neil at All People Have Value -- perhaps suffering a bit of Seasonal Affective Disorder -- ruefully observes that since nobody voted in 2014, nobody really cares about what happens in Austin in 2015.

Texpate made a prediction about this summer's Supreme Court decision on marriage equality.

Dos Centavos wants to remind everyone that there is, again, no Tejano band playing on Go Tejano Day at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo.

=====================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs:

TFN Insider and Texas Watch join in bidding Rick Perry a very fond "Adios, mofo".

Christopher Hooks at the Texas Observer details the unannounced reasons why Leticia Van de Putte is running for mayor of San Antonio.

Juanita Jean explains what "local control" really means.

The Lunch Tray highlights Ag Commissioner Sid Miller's grandstanding on "cupcake amnesty".

Better Texas Blog lays out its legislative priorities.

CeCe Cox wants rationality to win out over fear-mongering in Plano.

Bill Kelly of Mental Health America of Greater Houston has his maiden blog post up, welcoming the Texas Lege back into session.  Minding Houston will be an advocate for policy supporting the mental health care system in Texas.

Grits for Breakfast shares a SAEN op-ed that implores the Lege to comply with the Prison Rape Elimination Act by raising the age of criminal culpability.

Lone Star Ma bemoans the STAAR requirements.

Newsdesk eulogizes Linda Bridges, president of the American Federation of Teachers chapter in Texas, who died unexpectedly last week.

Socratic Gadfly shares his best blog posts of 2014.

Fascist Dyke Motors has the second part of what's inside your head.

Trail Blazers takes note of the Dallas DREAMer invited to sit in the First Lady's box at the State of the Union address tomorrow night.

Finally, the TPA wishes Paul Burka all the best as he begins the next chapter of his life.

Handicapping the race for mayor of Houston

If you want to read about the money involved, this won't be the post or the place.  I'm going to leave that to those who want continuing access to the consultantocracy, which is at the opposite end of the spectrum from where I am.  I want the money OUT of ALL of our politics, and that goal is not served by constantly speculating about or documenting the details and building up the importance of fundraising.

Money is the reason we can't have a nice democracy in this country, in this state, and in this city.  Too much money is why we don't have enough progressive, populist Democrats as it is.  Money -- specifically Super PAC money and shadowy corporate money -- is in fact one of the main reasons why Democrats are conflated with Republicans, and by extension one of the many reasons why they cannot get the people who used to vote for them to the polls any longer.  I hope Democrats wise up and figure this out sooner than later, but if they don't, there's always the political party that has, and they will be fielding candidates for city elections in 2015.  Competition on the basis of beliefs and not bucks simply produces better politicians.

Update: As the Notorious RBG has so clearly stated: "Why should elections be determined by how much a candidate can spend and why should candidates spend most of their time these days raising the funds so that they will prevail in the next election?"

Having said that...

1. In the pole position is Rep. Sylvester Turner.  It's been twelve years, so it's time for his third bid for the center seat in the horseshoe (he ran in 1991, losing in a close runoff to the late Bob Lanier, and finished third in 2003, to eventual mayor Bill White and Orlando Sanchez).  He's already been in the race for nearly a year.

Turner's legislative, parliamentarian, and legal prowess is unmatched.  It's his well-hidden agenda that's always a little suspect.  In 1999, when the Democrats still held the Texas House, he was just as hard to read for his motivations as he was in 2013.  Turner's populist bonafides are similarly unquestioned, but his skills at compromise have clouded any reputation as a progressive.  As of today, he's the prohibitive favorite.

2-3. It's difficult to pick who among the declareds might be running second, so let's call the co-leaders Stephen Costello and Chris Bell.  Costello is a term-limited at-large council member best described as the most moderate a Republican can be while still being in the GOP.  This is completely unsatisfactory to the vast majority of conservative voters, however, which may actually be helpful in the mayor's tilt.  Costello is a River Oaks Republican; that's valuable in this race despite what the freakiest-of-freak-right think.  (He would have trouble mollifying the HERO-phobes anyway.)

I posted about Costello's various and extremely lucrative city contracts when he first ran for council in 2009 here and in 2011 here, and Open Source Dem posted about Renew Houston, the initiative Costello headed to have dedicated municipal funds to flood control.  He'll have all the cash he needs to run big, his own and other people's.  If Republicans vote for someone besides Costello, it won't be because of what they sneeringly refer to as the "rain tax".

Bell's Democratic credentials are without question.  He also ran for mayor previously in 2001, an ill-fated bid against Lee Brown.  Since leaving City Hall in 2002, he has served in Congress and been tubed by Tom DeLay, then ran for governor in 2006, pounding the hapless incumbent in the last gubernatorial debate held in Texas until 2014 -- but coming in second, 39-30%.  He also lost a bid for state Senate in 2008 after a Republican-backed stalking horse named Stephanie Simmons forced him into a runoff with now-Sen. Joan Huffman, exposing some of the more unpleasant racial tensions that have dogged his public service.  Bell will have plenty of support among Houston Anglo Democrats; they're the largest voting bloc in the city.  He just needs to find a way to get more black and brown votes.  Bell's Wiki says he is a border surge proponent, which would limit support from Latinos, but in a recent conversation since last summer's child crisis, he's recognized that a greater degree of compassion is needed to solve the state's immigrant concerns.

(There is a tremendous opportunity for someone to speak up about issues of social justice such as the criminalizing of food-sharing -- if Kubosh can do it, surely some liberal can -- human trafficking, police abuse, and the plight of neighborhoods like Manchester that find themselves at the sharp end of the environmental spear while Valero gets yet another tax break.  I'll watch and see who might emerge in that regard.  It will certainly beat having to listen to the incessant caterwauling of the gay-haters.)

Bell's signature issue throughout his political career has been ethics reform, and specifically the regulation of what we used to quaintly call soft donor money.  This legacy is part of why he's suing Turner over how the contributions to the Representative's legislative coffers might be transferred to a mayoral run.

Considering the various constituencies who won't support him in any circumstance, Bell has a high bar to clear to make the runoff.  That could change if...

4-7. ... some of these conservatives can find traction and split the R vote: Ben Hall (of course he's a Republican, silly rabbit), Bill King, Oliver Pennington, and Orlando Sanchez.  Hall is raring to go again with his peculiar coalition of holy warriors aligned against the city's non-discrimination ordinance (black pastors, their flocks, and TeaBaggers).  People who look at early polling of the mayor's race see some strength for Hall.  I'm not party to those polls and wouldn't place much stock in them if I were.  He's just got too much baggage to carry from two years ago.  But it's fair to say that Hall's early support is not nothing, and he's still got the wallet to make it work.  My perception is that the Af-Am vote is already committed to Turner and that the far right can find a more palatable candidate in Pennington.  He's going to try to be the most conservative guy in the race, and that unfortunately might count for something.  King's just too much like Costello without the Houston ballot name recognition.  Sanchez, as with another Latino mulling the race, needs to commit before I can factor him into the exotic parlays.

8-12.  The already-also-rans, including some who are still 'maybes', include Metro board chairman Gilbert Garcia, former United Airlines executive Joe Ferreira, businessman Marty McVey, attorney Sean Roberts, and most doubtful of all, Council Member Jack Christie, who's lately saying more about not running.  Garcia's brother, Roland, is a high-powered attorney and an important behind-the-scenes player in the Parker administration.  Gilbert has started and managed a variety of high-profile financial firms and and hosted bloggers as part of Metro's PR push.  He was also active in Sylvia Garcia (no relation)'s campaign for state senator in 2012.  Garcia would make a fascinating entrant, but he's tipping that he's not running.  Roberts is a black Dem and known to me well as a decent fellow.  McVey was recently interviewed on urban radio about the events of Ferguson and Staten Island.  Ferreira is a political novice and somewhat of a cipher.  Only conservative Christie has held elected office, and he defeated  progressive darling Jolanda Jones just four years ago.  There's no reason to think any of these folks stand much of a chance, and that's irrespective of name recognition or funds or stances on issues.

The wildest of cards is, of course, Adrian Garcia.  He moves to the head of the class if he stops playing coy.  He's not talking about quitting the sheriff's department and jumping in because he can't, and this piece says he's not raising much money, but then there's this (from just before last Election Day).

Some donors and political allies say Garcia has sent every signal he will run for mayor. Others consider him genuinely undecided.

Nothing has prevented Garcia from raising big dollars. A fundraiser hosted by prominent trial attorney Tony Buzbee at his River Oaks home raked in more than $100,000 for him last month, and the popular politician raised $217,000 in the first half of 2014.

When introducing Garcia, Buzbee made it clear to the crowd that they stood in his home not to just bolster the coffers of the sheriff, but to build the fundraising base of the next mayor.

"I know you can't declare for mayor, and you can't declare you want to run for mayor, but, by golly, I wish you would look around this room and see who wants you to do so," Buzbee told Garcia.

Garcia told the 120 donors that he was focused solely on his current job.

Yeah.  And I promised I wouldn't blog about fundraising.

Everybody remembers why Buzbee has been in the news, right?  A Democrat once mentioned as a candidate for statewide office who is now quite solidly a Republican?  That almost precisely describes Adrian Garcia.

As previously mentioned, I wouldn't support him if he ran for dogcatcher, but my speaking against him won't keep him from making the runoff if he gets in.  He's the ultimate pandering, middle-of-the-road Blue Dog on his best day, and now I'm convinced he has had conversations with Buzbee about switching parties.  Forget his handing the position of Harris County Sheriff back to the GOP; he's a DINO long established.  If Adrian Garcia's ultimate ambition is to get elected to statewide office, then he will have to declare himself a Republican.  Should be just a matter of playing the card, as he's already there philosophically.

He's out until he's in, though, so rank it Turner, Costello, Bell, and some other conservative -- one of Hall or Pennington -- as of today.  If/when Sheriff AG pulls the trigger, it turns into a real scramble, with he and Turner and some Republican (I'd say probably a Caucasian one) as best bets to make the top two.  O Sanchez would be the biggest loser in this development.

What's your take?