Will Citizens United Sound the Death Knell for American Democracy

              Robert A. Levine    5-31-12

It may come off as hype even talking about the end of democracy in America, but one has to wonder about that as the repercussions of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court become more evident. America’s democracy has survived many hits in the past, but it’s possible this one could be a knock-out blow. And once down on the mat, democracy may not be able to get up again.

This consideration was raised by a recent Politico article reporting that Republican Super PACs will spend a billion dollars to try and elect their candidates in this election cycle. (http://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=482f87de1d55a93ceaa04945cb513295628728e3a741d9bd5de4fba222ff3263) These are not grass-roots organizations, but groups financed by a few big donors. For example, groups linked to the Koch brothers will spend about $400 million alone, organizing operations in important districts and states.

Now, there are those who will say ‘so what,’ and that campaign spending is like a popularity contest, where candidates with the most appeal raise the most money. And that the Democrats can also try and generate as much money as they can if they want to make the races more competitive.  And that money and campaign ads don’t determine the way people vote. And that Obama spent three quarters of a billion dollars on the last presidential campaign anyway.

In relation to the last argument, the money Obama raised and spent on his campaign was through his own organization and he vetted and was responsible for the messages that emerged. With the plethora of Super PACs now sprouting all over the landscape, extremely wealthy people can issue their own messages as they attempt to influence elections, often anonymously and with no constraints on what is said or how much money is donated.  They can distort opponents’ messages, say things out of context or with only a kernel of truth, or frankly lie or make up stories, with no one and no governmental agency to take them to task.

By buying up enough air time in major markets in the swing states, they can completely dominate the political dialogue in the presidential campaigns, restricting the ability of opponents to respond over the airways and drowning out any counterthrusts. These kingmakers can similarly impact Congressional and Senatorial races with their money, electing men and women with worldviews comparable to their own, thus being able to determine governmental policy.

Unfortunately, this control of the electoral process can become self-perpetuating, extinguishing the vestiges of democracy.  Instead of free and open elections, America could undergo a transition to a plutocracy, where the very wealthy have the power and make the rules. The only way this can be averted is if common sense limitations on campaign spending by individuals and corporations are instituted again. But how can this happen if our elected representatives, along with the president and Supreme Court are opposed to any restrictions?

Economic inequality in America will grow even worse in the future, as the tax laws and regulations are further shaped to favor the rich. And this will be more than matched by the disproportionate political power of the rich. If these Super PACs are allowed to continue to control the discourse, any semblance of fairness that remains in political campaigns and elections will vanish.

Some see a negative legacy from George W. Bush’s presidency as a result of the Iraq War and tax laws that increased the nation’s budget deficits.  However, I believe his enduring legacy will be his nominations to the Supreme Court, with its Citizen’s United ruling that gave control of the political process to the extremely wealthy.

James Madison noted in The Federalist Papers- “We may define a republic to be… a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people…not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class.” We are now moving away from this vision for our republic and whether or not this trend can be reversed remains a question.

Resurrecting Democracy
http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/

Super PAC Tuesday

            Robert A. Levine

It’s called Super Tuesday because of the large number of delegates for the presidential nominating convention up for grabs in the Republican primaries.  437 delegates were at stake today in ten states scattered among every region and time zone.

Because of the number of states involved, retail politics was not at a premium in these primaries, as it’s impossible to schedule enough personal appearances and shake enough hands to connect with the electorate. That’s why a more appropriate label would be Super PAC Tuesday, since the primary in  Ohio, the most important state, was probably decided by media buys and repetitive advertising, which played a major role everywhere. And the candidates’ Super PACs are the organizations with the financial heft and advertising savvy that can sway voters to support their candidates through TV and radio ads. The campaigns, of course, also contributed money to the political dialogue, but the Super PACs dominated the discourse.

The Super PACs tend to favor negative advertising and attack ads against the opposing candidates, which seem to influence voters more than those that build up their own nominees. The pro-Romney Super PAC, Restore Our Future, had the most cash to spend, and dispensed it liberally (if a forbidden word can be used). This Super PAC has a list of donors that sounds like a who’s who of billionaires and made media buys all around the country.

Gingrich’s Super PAC, Winning Our Future, only appears to have one billionaire on board, Sheldon Adelson, who has contributed tens of millions of dollars. Gingrich concentrated his efforts on his home state of Georgia and will continue what might be considered a southern strategy in the future, trying to keep neighboring states in his camp.

Santorum competed all over, but particularly focused on Ohio, which was really Super Tuesday biggest prize. Santorum’s Red, White and Blue Super PAC, was largely funded by Foster Freiss, an affluent conservative who likes Santorum’s stands on the social issues.

Ron Paul saw his best chance for a victory in Alaska, where his libertarian views have gotten some traction.
One large state, Virginia was really not in play, with the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns failing to get their candidates on the ballot. Georgia appeared to be in Gingrich’s pocket from the outset, with Massachusetts in Romney’s. Whoever won the popular vote in each state, the formula for allocating delegates varied, with some states having winner take all while others doing it proportionately.

Early returns showed Romney with victories in Vermont, Massachusetts, and Virginia, with Gingrich on top in Georgia. No surprises there. Santorum won Tennessee and Oklahoma where 70% of the primary voters described themselves as evangelicals, along with North Dakota. No real surprises there. With a neck and neck battle throughout the evening, Romney finally pulled ahead in Ohio by a thin margin, but by 11:30 EST his victory was notconfirmed. His strength in Ohio was in the urban and suburban areas, while Santorum won the rural parts of the state. However, if Gingrich had been out of the mix, Santorum would have been easily victorious in Ohio. Romney also won in Idaho by what appears to be a significant margin.

No matter how Alaska plays out, at the end of the night, Romney will be far ahead in the total delegate count. His Super PAC and organizational prowess have been delivering for him. Money has long been known as the mother’s milk of politics with Super PACs now functioning as the cash cows for candidates. It can be anticipated that obtaining the nomination and winning the general election itself will depend to a major degree on how much milk the Super PACs will be able to provide for their candidates.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com