Ted Olson Wants Congress to Bar the Koch Brothers’ Contributions to Incumbents. I Say: Good Idea!
Post updated below.
—-
Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure. They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates. Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office.
Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Senate Democrats claim that they are merely interested in good government to “restore democracy to the American people” by reducing the amount of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.
— Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment. When politicians seek to restrict speech, they are invariably trying to pr otect their own incumbency. By Theodore B. Olson, Wall Street Journal, today
Hmmm. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance statute, which the Supreme Court largely eviscerated in Citizens United v. FEC in early 2010 and all but completed the job earlier this year in McCutcheon v. FEC, was enacted in 2002. In 2006, the Democrats unexpectedly gained control of both the Senate and the House, largely by defeating, y’know, Republican incumbents, and substantially increased their majority in both houses in 2008, mainly by defeating, um, Republican incumbents. Citizens United certainly helped the Republicans gain control of the House in 2010, but failed that year and again in 2012 to recapture the Senate. Harry Reid won reelection in 2010, despite the Kochs’ and Karl Rove’s very best efforts.
Led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Republicans, as Koch puppets, claim that by defeating the proposed constitutional amendment to nullify Citizens United and McCutcheon, they are merely interested in good government to “return democracy to the American people” by continuing to allow unlimited amounts of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to have Congress and state legislatures controlled by plutocratic puppeteers who actually draft legislation secretly and then deliver the finished draft to their legislator puppets, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and try to gain or retain a stranglehold on mechanisms of government and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.
That said, if Ted Olson’s real concern is that a return to pre-Citizens United, McCain-Feingold-like campaign finance laws would just serve to strengthen incumbency, the obvious answer is to demand that Mitch McConnell, an incumbent currently running for reelection, step up to the plate, return his Koch contributions, and propose legislation that would restrict contributions to incumbents in order to give challengers a stronger voice. That’s something that McConnell and his challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, might agree on.
It’s all about the First Amendment, see.
What a moronic op-ed.
—-
UPDATE: I posted the following comment in the Comments thread in response to some comments there indicating that some readers missed the specific intended point of this post:
The intended point of my post is that Olson’s claim is clearly false that removing restrictions on contributions by the very wealthy and corporations hurts incumbents. This is a canard that the right is using to try to tamp down anger about Citizens United and McCutcheon and the unlimited amounts of money that are now purchasing elections, candidates and elected officials—and to undermine attempts to nullify those opinions.
Clearly, the Kochs and other very, very wealthy people are individually paying huge amounts of money to finance McConnell’s campaign. McConnell is an incumbent. So are the current Republican House members whose reelection campaigns these people are funding. McConnell’s opponent isn’t an incumbent; she’s a challenger. So are the Democrats trying to unseat House Republican incumbents. This is a sleight-of-hand that Olson and the others think no one will notice. I noticed. It’s a false statement of fact.
9/9 at 12:09 p.m.
“Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure.”
Course no mention of the “little tinkering” done to the First Amendment by the Five Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
” When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.”
Course no mention of who dominates the “marketplace of ideas.”
geez, I hate these people.
Much better would be a Constitutional Amendment saying that only those individuals registered to vote in an election may contribute to a candidate in that election.
PACs, unions, corporations, etc., cannot vote, and so would not be allowed to contribute to campaigns.
Furthermore, no matter how rich one is, one could only buy (or rent) one congresscritter and two Senators.
Wow.
I agree with Jack.
Let me check my blood pressure.
What we need is a law remaking the American labor market — read: reunionizing the American labor market. The late dean of the D.C. press corps, Dean Broder, wrote that 50 years ago when he came to Washington the lobbyists were all union lobbyists.
A reunionized workforce would mean an equal level of financing with ownership, equal number of lobbyists minding every little thing that we want in the store — and 99% of the votes.
If anyone has read this far — instead of laughing off the “fantasy” of reunionization — there is a modality by which the American workforce may be easily reunionized. Anybody who has heard my constant griping knows I am talking about LEGALLY MANDATED, CENTRALIZED BARGAINING — where all employees doing the same kind of work (e.g., retail clerk) negotiate on common contract with all employers (eliminating the I-have-to-pay-you-less-because-the-competition-pays-less race-to-the-bottom).
Jimmy Hoffa fought to expand one common contract for all truckers across the whole country starting in Detroit’s labor jungle in the 1930s. Took him 30 years but he accomplished it: the Teamster Union’s, National Master Freight Agreement, 1964.
I read in “In These Times” a few years ago of Chicago taxi drivers (was me for 20 years) calling for a demonstration for something. They had an office at “In These Times.” I wrote and told them to just go to their local city councilman and offer to work for them for two weeks every election time. I now see cab drivers working for my alderman at election time (never saw any demonstrations) and I am sure the aldermen (plural) are calling the cab drivers to find out what they can do for them.
Don’t need to fight “Out of the Jungle” (Jimmy Hoffa and the Remaking of the American Working Class Hardcover – September 11, 2001 — by Thaddeus Russell). Just vote for it: take it easy but take it.
Don’t want to curtail campaign contributions — not if we are going to make most of the contributions. 🙂
For some reason this link did not work above — but worked on an old “Open Thread” — so here goes again:
“Out of the Jungle” (Jimmy Hoffa and the Remaking of the American Working Class – September 11, 2001 — by Thaddeus Russell)
Might as well throw in “Hoffa and the Teamsters” — 1965 — by the James (husband and wife). Hoffa challenged two professors to stay with him all day long for six months, pretending to be his aids (causing some to suspect they were federal agents spying on him), talk to any union officials they wanted to, dig as deeply into Teamster records as they wished (which they did voluminously as professors will do). Went on, on and off, for two years.
Let’s try again:
Hoffa and the teamsters; a study of union power Hardcover – January 1, 1965 by Ralph C. James and Estelle James
Denis,
I am with you(not totally) brother.
But you gotta find relevant topics for your mantra.
EMichael,
Relevant? As in something everybody (or at least somebody) is already talking about already? I am perfectly sincere in asking.
If nobody is talking about it already is the problem, I cannot think of any way around that except to try endlessly to get somebody else to pick up the topic — of legally mandated, centralized bargaining. It is the only way to make any modern democracy work. Ask continental Europeans (like Germans, French, etc — French Canada, too).
Ask Jimmy Hoffa (if you know where he’s buried).
“C’mon, Man!”
This topic is about the funding of elections.
Beverly Mann,
I believe that the Olsens of the world have serious doubts about majority rule.
But I have serious doubts about a constitutional amendment that would allow federal and state legislative bodies to regulate any citizen’s use of private funds to to speak out on any issue. Let them say what they want as long as the speakers are clearly identified during an election cycle. Thus section 1 of the amendment seems to be a problem.
The current version from: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19/text
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein)
Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”
The courts could interpret “and others” in Section 1 to mean natural persons too. That sentence is very broad and I interpret it to mean a contribution to a campaign or any other spending which might influence an election, even if the material did not mention the candidates.
And if this amendment is to survive the machinations of the US Supreme Court, it should include “, notwithstanding any other article of this constitution” at the end of sections 1 and 2.
In my opinion the real problems come from corporations or other groupings of natural persons. Or from a failure to provide a true disclosure of the spender.
“A reunionized workforce would mean an EQUAL LEVEL OF FINANCING with ownership, equal number of lobbyists minding every little thing that we want in the store — and 99% of the votes.”
[emphasis added]
I get tired of seeing myriad suggestions for constitutional or legislated restrictions on financing elections when the EASY ANSWER (at least easy in theory — be nice for anybody to even discuss the actually instituting it) would entail labor supplying as much if not more campaign financing with as I said 99% OF THE VOTES.
Denis
Using your method, every single topic would be open to every single issue.
At the same time, I am not totally happy with any kind of election finance other than government finance.
It is hypocritical to think that corps funding elections is bad, but unions funding elections is good.
But that was not the purpose of your posts that I addressed.
I have no problem with corp funding — just lack of everybody else’s.
Using my understanding every topic boils down to one and only one issue — and I mean every topic that has any economic content. Whether it is (was) my totally helpless free fall in the labor market, my current problem with steady, sneaky defunding of Medicaid in Illinois — or anything I read about (e.g., private equity piracy). Reverse the power and it all goes away. I refuse to discuss things in terms of the (helpless and seemingly hopeless) way they are (I know what I may sound like sticking to that one-note-tune).
Ask yourself: “What would Jimmy Hoffa say?” 🙂
Jim, that inclusion of “and others” is very much intended to apply to natural persons—e.g., the Koch brothers—and the sentence is intended to apply to campaign ads trying to masquerade as “issues” ads by not mentioning a particular candidate, as well as to ads overtly advocating for or against a particular candidate. Those are critical purposes of the amendment. Without those parts, there’s not much point to an amendment attempting to nullify Citizens United and McCutcheon.
Drew, there are many, many statutes that should be passed, including some repealing some current statutes. The problem is that as long as we have our current system of campaign funding, the Koch brothers and their ilk control what’s enacted. So the threshold issue is campaign finance; that’s the gateway that determines what legislation is possible.
Berverly,
No; the threshold is hot air: opening up a whole new issue for people to think about (you know; the one nobody at talking about at all). Imagine if Obama (unimaginable for him or either Clinton) came out strong for remaking the whole country by reunionizing the only way that works. We talk it up — we get people vote against for any candidate who refuses to support it — and pretty soon …
Legally mandated centralized bargaining is not ice cubes to Eskimos. The moment I read of it ten years ago my reaction was “Why didn’t I think of that?” Until that moment I could not imagine any way out. I’m not the only one.
Drew has a highly valid point. When did the McCain-Feingold years become a golden age in which big business wasn’t the dominant influence on politicians, via direct and indirect campaign contributions? Big labor once had considerable influence, achieved by delivering money and manpower, frequently counterbalancing the influence of businesses. That influence waned long ago and it hasn’t been replaced. The results speak for themselves. Perhaps rather than legislating less “political speech” (uh, channeling SCOTUS with those words) by some, legislate more “political speech” by others–unions, for example?
The way to have “the other 99%” involved in the financing of elections is to have government only financing elections. That involves 100% of the people and makes the politicians answerable to 100% rather than 1% of the people.
The intended point of my post is that Olson’s claim is clearly false that removing restrictions on contributions by the very wealthy and corporations hurts incumbents. This is a canard that the right is using to try to tamp down anger about Citizens United and McCutcheon and the unlimited amounts of money that are now purchasing elections, candidates and elected officials—and to undermine attempts to nullify those opinions.
Clearly, the Kochs and other very, very wealthy people are individually paying huge amounts of money to finance McConnell’s campaign. McConnell is an incumbent. So are the current Republican House members whose reelection campaigns these people are funding. McConnell’s opponent isn’t an incumbent; she’s a challenger. So are the Democrats trying to unseat House Republican incumbents. This is a sleight-of-hand that Olson and the others think no one will notice. I noticed. It’s a false statement of fact.
Beverly Mann wrote: “Jim, that inclusion of “and others” is very much intended to apply to natural persons—e.g., the Koch brothers—and the sentence is intended to apply to campaign ads trying to masquerade as “issues” ads by not mentioning a particular candidate, as well as to ads overtly advocating for or against a particular candidate. Those are critical purposes of the amendment.”
Well, as written I don’t think that it will ever get past the House.
And it probably would not get past the House even if it allowed natural persons to contribute but forced disclosure. (Assuming it banned other than natural persons from making contributions or funding ads.)
Personally, I would rather see an amendment which denied any personhood to corporations as far as the constitution is concerned. They should only have the rights that their government creators allow them. But that wouldn’t get past the Republicans either.
So we will be stuck with ads from undisclosed contributors. (Money funneled thru 501(c)(4) organizations which are not required to disclose their contributors.)
How about government matching all contributions to incumbents and challengers. Incumbents would be hiding from contributors — no longer spending half their time raising campaign money and the other half working for the folks who gave the money. Challengers would have less success raising money simply because contributors would understand their money would be automatically matched for the opposition.
Buy our government back. :-O
So what’s the difference between the Koch operation and DA?
Denis, I think you’re not understanding that as per current Supreme Court opinions, your proposals are unconstitutional. Here’s an article from June 27, 2011 by Washington Post Supreme Court correspondent Robert Barnes, about an opinion issued that day in a case called Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett:
“The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of Arizona’s public campaign finance law, the latest in a series of its rulings holding that the right of political speech trumps government efforts to restrain the power of money in elections.
“The court rejected Arizona’s system of providing additional funding to publicly funded candidates when they face big-spending opponents or opposition groups. The system has been used in every statewide and legislative election since voters approved it in 1998, after a rash of political scandals in the Arizona capitol.
“But the court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, said the law impermissibly forces privately funded candidates and independent political organizations to either restrain their spending or risk triggering matching funds to their publicly financed opponents.
“The First Amendment embodies our choice as a nation that, when it comes to such speech, the guiding principle is freedom — the ‘unfettered interchange of ideas’ — not whatever the state may view as fair,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
“Under Roberts, the court has sided every time with those who challenge government restrictions on campaign finance. The court’s conservative majority — Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — has declared that major portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act are unconstitutional.
“And the loosening of spending constraints on corporations and unions in last year’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a game-changing decision that roiled the midterm elections.”
So, Denis, you can suggest all the terrific laws you want, but, yes, the threshold necessity is nullifying the Supreme Court’s several rulings issued since early 2010. Anything else is putting the cart before the horse.
One thing I’ve noticed about rightwingers in their comments on this blog an elsewhere is that they have a particular set of hobby horses that they think every statement even remotely touching on one of their hobby horses is actually about the hobby horse generically rather than about a specific, sometimes-very-narrow fact or point. So they just keep repeating their hobby horse mantra, no matter how many times others say to them that the particular issue in that discussion or blog post or whatever is about a narrow point, not about the entire broad issue. You’re doing the same thing here that the wingers do.
There are only two ways to accomplish the prerequisite to enactment of campaign finance laws that will be upheld: a constitutional amendment or a change in one member of the Supreme Court. (There is another potential one, but it’s complicated, and I won’t get into it here.)
I don’t know what DA is, Little John.
Sorry. Democracy Alliance. Check it out. This is big money you may like.
I just googled Democracy Alliance, Little John, and found this article about from yesterday’s Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/08/new-koch-offensive-puts-spotlight-on-democracy-alliance/. The article is titled “New Koch offensive puts spotlight on Democracy Alliance.” But I’m at a loss to understand how this group can be analogized to the Koch brothers on the issue of campaign finance. This group’s stated purpose regarding campaign finance is to oppose, not support, the Supreme Court’s dismantling of campaign-finance federal and state statutory laws, the equating of money and speech for First Amendment purposes, and the designation of corporations as people for that purpose.
Is Democracy Alliance drafting economics-and-regulation-related legislation and handing it secretly to Democratic members of Congress, who then introduce it, as drafted, as a bill? Really?
Nobody knows what they are doing since they are very, very secretive. DA is by invitation only and you must give at least $200,000 annually to one of their preferred organizations. The list of preferred organizations is too lengthy to list here but you would be incredibly naïve to think that these organizations don’t draft model legislation for their surrogates in Congress to introduce as bills. Where do you think your Koch talking points originated? And if you think that an organization that will direct 375 million dollars in the 2014 election cycle as supporting campaign finance reform then I have a bridge for sale that you really need to look at.
LJ:
Please, no one knows what they are doing? How about this:
“But when it comes to sheer volume of cash, the DA isn’t in the same league as the Koch network. While the DA takes credit for steering more than $500 million in donations to recommended groups since its creation in 2005, the Koch network spent more than $400 million in 2012 alone.
Koch network donors are expected to provide almost every penny of the Koch operation’s $290 million 2014 spending goal. By contrast, DA donors — or “partners,” in the club’s parlance — are projected to provide a maximum of $39 million toward the $200 million 2014 spending goal of the 21 core DA groups, according to the briefing booklet. That means most of the cash raised by DA-linked groups actually comes from donors, institutions or revenue streams outside the DA’s cloistered ranks. Another difference: While DA partners are required to donate at least $200,000 a year to recommended groups, they ultimately decide to which group their money goes. The Koch network, on the other hand, collects contributions in the nonprofit political hub Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, which then distributes the cash mostly as it sees fit to groups in the network.” http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/inside-the-vast-liberal-conspiracy-108171.html#ixzz3CrCCSymp
The Koch talking points actually originated from a now-iconic very, very in-depth 2010 New Yorker article by Jane Mayer about the Koch brothers and all their decades-long tentacles. Almost no one—including me—had ever heard of them before.
Since then, the Kochs have been out-in-the-open about their astronomical amounts of financial support for far-right agenda, and that they are the ones who established the PAC they run, etc., etc. They do not disclose the donors to their PAC, nor the donation amounts. But seminal issue on campaign finance law is the unlimited amounts spent on campaign donations and on campaign ads—especially by a handful of billionaires, most but not all of them Republican.
The problem with your equivalency claim is that the legislation drafted by the Kochs and other business lobbyists, and handed to Republican federal and state politicians whose campaigns they significantly funded, and some mirror-image thing for Democrats, is that the legislation that the Kochs and the other business interests are drafting (and the legislation that their puppets are blocking), directly impact their own financial interests.
So, what legislation do you think Soros, et al., played a role in enacting? Dodd-Frank (including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provision)? Obamacare? I mean, really. Think about what it is that you’re actually claiming here.
As for that bridge you want to sell me, it must be about to appreciate substantially in value for its new private owner. These organizations are trying to reelect, and have tried in earlier elections to support, the very people who have supported campaign finance laws with their votes in Congress. Harry Reid, y’know? Nancy Pelosi? Russ Feingold? And they’re trying to defeat Mitch McConnell, not reelect him.
The analogy doesn’t work, Little John. Sorry. But the Kochs’ decision to push it now does give the Dems a terrific opening to drive home the point that the candidates that Democracy Alliance are supporting support rather than oppose measures to nullify the Supreme Court’s money = speech juggernaut.
PS: I just learned that Jeff Merkley is the senator who drafted and formally submitted the proposed constitutional amendment. That would be the same Jeff Merkley who is running for reelection right now and is supported by Democracy Alliance.
So, Little John, I hope you haven’t sold that bridge to anyone else. I really, REALLY want to buy it.
Run is right. DA is tiny compared to the Koch operation, but it’s not from a lack of trying. Don’t you wish that DA could spend as much as the Koch brothers?
In terms of Soros, or any other billionaire investor, if you don’t think they can profit from Dodd-Frank, The ACA, or any other policy choice they champion then you may not be familiar with what billionaire investors do for a living.
Koch and DA are just different sides of same coin.
LJ:
“Don’t you wish that DA could spend as much as the Koch brothers?”
No, I do not wish such. I do wish they would crawl back in their holes. Justices Roberts and Kennedy have ignored legal precedent and have made this SCOTUS the most politically active court in the history of SCOTUS impacting the power struggle between corporations and citizens to the benefit of corporations. Without a doubt the Senate Repubs have skewed our legal system filling many judgeships with conservative judges who care little for individual rights in favor of corporate and creating a corpocracy. The swing states such as Michigan have been gerrymandered by the state legislatures being strongly Repub during census redistricting (1990, 2000, and 2010 in Michigan) simply by packing the districts not giving true consideration to voters and ultimately disenfranchising 4 million voters as I wrote early. These were states in which the majority voted Dem. The outcome can be seen in the House majority at 234 – 201 rather than 220-215. In Michigan alone rather than 9-5 favoring Repubs, it would have been 8-6 favoring Dems. The outlook is bad for constituents.
LJ,
Can you tell me how Soros benefited from Dodd-Frank or the ACA?
Or any other legislation?
Run-your statement speaks for itself. I would just say doing is better than wishing.
E-I am not totally familiar with all of Soros’ holdings but his fund recently took a large position in AIG. Possibly he believes AIG will benefit from some of the ACA’s provisions. Are you familiar with stop-loss coverage or voluntary employee benefits?
I would also add that AIG has been deemed a SIFI as defined by Dodd Frank.
Whoa. That George Soros! He sure is a sharp one, he! Amazing foresight! And what patience! Four years after the ACA was passed, he decided to buy into AIG—because Blue Cross has stop-loss reinsurance with AIG? (Actually, it doesn’t, except maybe in case a bunch of doctor’s offices suddenly go down in flames.)
And, about that SIFI designation—he must know something about how terrifically valuable that designation is for an insurance company that MetLife’s CEO doesn’t. I had no idea what SIFI is, so I googled it, and up came this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2014/09/04/metlife-tagged-with-systemically-important-designation/
And, according to Wikipedia, AIG’s reinsurance is entirely in casualty and retirement benefits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group
Oh, I get it! All those people who will be forced to retire early because of the ACA—all those layoffs, y’know—will prove Soros to be financial genius!
Bev-AIG is a major player in the medical stop loss captive business. Google AIG Benefit Solutions, the look under the tab Employer Risk Solutions.
In terms of SIFI, think about how that designation may seem onerous to an insurance company CEO while to an investor it may provide a layer of security.
LJ,
So your answer is no.
Look I do not think anyone, or any corp, should be allowed to use their wealth to influence elections.
But the Koch brothers and the ahs like Pope in NC are truly evil human beings.