Use Knox V. SEIU to Attack Money in Politics

Use Knox V. SEIU to Attack Money in Politics

© 6/24/2012 - Josh Sager

Jsager99@gmail.com

781-864-4572

Background

Money in Politics

The modern political era has been party to massive regressions in campaign finance law, as well as corresponding increases in political spending by wealthy groups and individuals. Over the past 40 years, a series of judicial decisions and precedent interpretations have opened the floodgates, allowing a tsunami of money to overtake the political process. This money, originating from corporations, unions, wealthy individuals and advocacy groups, has sculpted the political landscape into one of gridlock and legalized corruption.

Arguably, the first step in the journey which led to the current political climate was the 1886 Supreme Court decision Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. This case’s decision was a vital prerequisite for the current political climate because it was the seed from which “corporate personhood grew. The resolution of a tax dispute between the local government of Santa Clara, CA, and the Southern Pacific railroad led to the including of corporations in the 14^th amendment to the Constitution. Interpretations of this case led to a granting of some human rights, most importantly the 1^st amendment right to free speech, to American corporations. This decision, while dormant and largely inconsequential in regard to politics for many years, has become the foundation of the argument which allows corporations to spend money in our elections. By giving corporations the human right to free speech, the Supreme Court created a situation where they could not be restricted from “speaking” about political matters. 

In 1976, the Supreme Court decision Buckley V. Valeo redefined monetary donations as just another form of free expression, virtually synonymous with normal speech; while this decision upheld the concept that monetary donations in politics can be limited, its redefinition of money as speech made future regulations of donations very difficult. Due to this decision, donating money became protected speech, and donations to political groups became synonymous with verbal support. The precedent set by Buckley V. Valeo rendered the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad interpretation a vital Supreme Court precedent, as their interaction created a situation where corporations had a protected right to spend money in elections.

The now-infamous Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision of 2010 was the decision which finally broke the dam holding back money in politics. Before the Citizens United decision, monetary expenditure, while considered speech, were held in check by limits to the monetary amount which can be donated during campaigns; these limits prevented wealthy individual, as well as non-human collections of wealth (ex. Corporations and unions), from donating unlimited sums of money in support of their political candidates. Citizens United v. FEC rendered limits on campaign spending to be unconstitutional, thus it led to the explosion of money in politics.

Despite the recent public focus on the judicial mistake know as Citizens United v. FEC, the flood of money into politics was not caused by a single Supreme Court decision; it was brought about through a combination of several decisions, interacting within the law and incrementally increasing the power of money in politics. The granting of human rights to corporations led to a level playing field between individuals and corporation, essentially granting corporations the rights of humans without the legal liabilities or inconvenience of a conscience. The redefining of monetary donations as speech led to corporations, which were then considered people, being given the right to “speak” with their money up to the very limits of the legal campaign donations. The proverbial straw which broke the camel’s back in the fight to keep money out of politics, was the removal of campaign donation limits; this decision led to a proportional level of power based upon money rather than votes – turning our political system from one where “one person equals one vote” to one where “one dollar equals one vote”.

Recently, several groups have been attacking corporate personhood, the synonymy of money with speech, and unlimited campaign donations in order to return integrity to our political process. As the primary causes of the recent political crisis are interpretations of the constitution by the Supreme Court, the only remedies to this crisis have become a constitutional amendment or another decision by the Supreme Court superseding their current stance.

Ultimately, as Supreme Court decisions can be changed, the only long-term solution to the problem of money in politics is a constitutional amendment banning money from political campaigns. Despite its ineffectiveness as a long term fix, a decision by the Supreme Court increasing the difficulty corporations have while donating money to politicians would help stem the flow of money into politics. I believe that such an opportunity to challenge the current political donation law was opened up by the decision of Knox v. SEIU.

Knox V. SEIU

During the 2012 term of the Supreme Court, the court heard and decided upon the case of Knox v. SEIU. This case, and the precedent it sets, involves the rights of public unions to compel donations from their members for the express purpose of political speech.

In 2005, the California Service Employees International Union (SEIU) attempted to increase its members’ dues for a temporary increase in political spending during the upcoming 2006 political cycle; this increase was minor for each person paying union dues, totaling a sum of $6.45 a month, yet some people objected. Several non-union members, who still paid union dues to their support collective bargaining (referred to as “chargeable expenses”), challenged the increase due to their disagreement with the recipient of the political expenditures of the union; these people sued the SEIU to stop their money from supporting political speech which they didn’t agree with, and, in January 2012, the court was heard by the United States Supreme Court.

The decision in Knox v. SEIU, derived from a 7-2 ruling and written by Samuel Alito, decided that the SEIU had violated the 1^st Amendment rights of its members by compelling a political donation without prior consent. This decision rested heavily upon the compulsion of belonging to a union, thus supporting political speech by the union, created by current law. Since people were mandated by the government to pay SEIU dues, and these dues were considered “political speech” (due the Buckley v. Valeo defining money as speech and United States v. United Foods Inc. defining compulsory political speech as unconstitutional), the government was determined to be mandating speech. As the government cannot mandate political speech under the 1^st amendment, the Supreme Court decided that the SEIU increasing political “speech” without consent was unconstitutional. 

Current California state and federal law allows for the creation of “union shops” - places of business that require workers to pay union dues, regardless of whether they are union members – and supports the compulsion that all workers must pay union dues. Knox v. SEIU separates the primary goal of the union, collective bargaining, from the secondary goal of political input, and names it unconstitutional for a public sector union to compel donations aimed at political speech.

From the Syllabus of the case, explaining current stare decisis on compulsory speech

When a State establishes an “agency shop” that exacts compulsory union fees as a condition of public employment, “[t]he dissenting employee is forced to support financially an organization with whose principles and demands he may disagree.”   Ellis  v.  Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 455.  This form of compelled speech and association imposes a “significant impingement on First Amendment rights.”  Ibid.  The justification for permitting a union to collect fees from nonmembers—to prevent them from free-riding on the union’s efforts—is an anomaly.  Similarly, requiring objecting nonmembers to opt out of paying the nonchargeable portion of union dues―rather than exempting them unless they opt in―represents a remarkable boon for unions, creating a risk that the fees nonmembers pay will be used to further political and ideological  ends  with  which  they  do  not  agree. Thus, Hudson, far from calling for a balancing of rights or interests, made it clear that any procedure for exacting fees from unwilling contributors must be “carefully tailored to minimize the infringement” of free speech rights, 475 U. S. 302−303, and it cited cases holding that measures burdening the freedom of speech or association must serve a compelling interest and must not be significantly broader than necessary to serve that interest. – Knox v. SEIU Syllabus, Pg. 3

The central premise of Knox v. SEIU can be condensed down to a very simple question: Can an organization which the government mandates citizens to financially support compel those mandated to support it pay additional fees - without prior consent – aimed at supporting the organization’s political speech? The decision of Knox v. SEIU clearly states that such compelled donations without prior consent are unconstitutional infringements upon the 1^st Amendment.

Excerpt from the opinions of the court - Pg. 2 - written by Samuel Alito in concurrence with Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg.

“The First Amendment, we held, does not permit a public-sector union to adopt procedures that have the effect of requiring objecting nonmembers to lend the union money to be used for political, ideological, and other purposes not germane to collective bargaining.”

The ultimate result of Knox v. SEIU is that public sector unions will no longer be able to compel political donations from members who don’t give prior consent to their funds being used for political speech. While unions are acknowledged to provide a primary service to all workers in a workplace, thus these workers must pay union dues regardless of personal preference, the secondary goals of these unions cannot compel increased funding; in short, by defining the primary purpose of public sector unions as the facilitation of collective bargaining and separating this purpose from that of political spending, the court has reduced the ability of unions to compel funds for their political speech.

Proposal

Introduction

With the precedent set by the recent Supreme Court Decision Knox v. SEIU, I see the potential for a new line of attack on corporate interests donating money. Instead of simply attempting to attack large aggregations of wealth and power’ (ex. corporations and unions) right to spend money in elections, citizens can use Knox v. SEIU to attack such donations through the argument that such groups are unconstitutionally compelling donations from the public.

Public sector unions are not the only groups which utilize government laws and regulations to compel citizens to pay for their activities: Corporations which receives government contracts (ex. Lockheed Martin), corporations whose stock is purchased by public pension funds (ex. blue-chip stocks), military and privatized public good suppliers (ex. private prison corporations), are simply three examples of situation where the public is compelled to invest in a corporation. A corporation which receives government money is receiving funds obtained through the mandated payment of taxes on the public; as there is no way to opt out of taxes or directly control the flow of tax revenue to prohibit the giving of tax money to specific corporations (ex. saying that none of your taxes shall go to Exxon Mobil), the government is essentially forcing taxpayers to support specific corporations.

As with the government mandating workers in a union shop to pay the SEIU for their promotion of collective bargaining, it is entirely proper for the government to compel citizens to pay for the corporate contracts utilized by the government to provide for society; tax income has regularly been used to contract the provision of public services and goods to private corporations (ex. military weapons contracts). The problem emerges when the same corporations which receive public funding, raised through mandated taxes, are spending money as “political speech”.

If a corporation which has received public money for a service chooses to engage in political speech (and, given the widespread use of lobbying combined with the propagation of corporate subsidies, this is essentially every large corporation) then the government is, in effect, mandating that the average taxpayer support said corporation’s political speech. Just as the SEIU attempted to use its funds to support its political “speech”, corporations utilize their profits to facilitate their own “speech”. Just as the SEIU benefits from government’s “agency shop” rules forcing all workers to support them monetarily, many corporations benefit from the government giving them funding raised through taxes.  

Put plainly, if the SEIU cannot utilize money collected through government compulsion for its political “speech”, as this would violate the 1^st Amendment, no corporation receiving money from the government – money collected through compulsory taxation - should be able to utilize its funds for political speech. If Knox v. SEIU is applied to corporate entities rather than just public unions, as is proper under current free-speech law, corporations could still spend money in politics, just as long as they are barred from receiving any and all public assistance.

The banning of private organizations from receiving public monies based upon taxpayers’ objections to such organizations being granted public funds is not unprecedented: The “Title X” ban on abortion providers being paid through public funds, even if their actions are constitutionally protected, was upheld during the 1991 case Rust v. Sullivan. If it is constitutional for abortion providing corporations to be banned from receiving public subsidies (in the form of compulsory tax dollars), assisting them in performing their constitutionally protected services (abortions), then it is constitutional for the government to ban other corporations from receiving such funds to perform other constitutionally protected activities (ex. political speech). This is not to say that such organizations cannot act with private money, but rather that they must perform their constitutionally protected activities – whether abortion or political speech - with private funds.

I propose a legal challenge to the United States government, aimed specifically at expanding Knox v. SEIU to cover all corporate and union entities which receive public funds where there is no opt-out. Based upon current jurisprudence, this case would conform to the current law and would drastically reduce the amount of money in politics. If a corporation is forced to choose between the revenue which comes from government contracts, public sector pension investments, subsidies, grants, and contracts, and their ability to freely exercise their first amendment rights to free speech, it is likely that they will choose to relinquish their right to speak. By forcing large corporations to pick between their pocketbooks and their ability to influence politics, concerned citizens can force corporations to voluntarily disarm much of their political apparatuses.

As a favorable decision in this case would simply expand the constitutional interpretations of existing laws, there is no need to pass the partisan and gridlocked legislature. Given its past decisions of Citizens United v. FEC and Knox v. SEIU, an intellectually consistent Supreme Court would be forced to side with the challengers’’ interpretations of the law - under current law, political speech restrictions do not distinguish between unions and corporations, thus what applies to unions receiving compulsory funding would necessarily apply to corporations receiving the same. As this legal case does not challenge a specific ideology within free speech, it does not violate the constitutional ban against the government favoring specific types of speech; in fact, a Supreme Court denial of this interpretation would represent a discrimination of speech favoring corporations over unions.

Standing

Anybody who is currently paying taxes or paying into a government pension program could potentially have standing to challenge the constitutionality of their money being used to fund corporations’ political speech. As corporate profits are not separated by source, a portion of every taxpayer’s taxes, while small, is being used by corporations to fund their political speech. Under the Knox v. SEIU precedent, the use of such money violates the 1^st Amendment right to free speech for every individual to be forced to pay the corporation.

Limitations

Even if the proposed case is successful, and a Supreme Court expands Knox v. SEIU to disarm corporations, this court case would not completely solve the problem of money in politics; a favorable decision would mitigate some of its effects, but not solve the problem at its source (similar to cutting a weed off at ground-level rather than pulling it up at its roots). The following list is of several limitations and complications which would accompany the legal fight and results (if successful) of the proposed legal case:

1. 1.      The current Supreme Court is a highly partisan body and could potentially throw away its own precedent to support the sustainability of corporate power in politics. While this action would be so obviously hypocritical, given their Knox v. SEIU decision, that they would lose face in the public eye, however it is entirely possible that they would act so anyway.
2. 2.      Once corporate groups became aware of the effort to cripple their funding streams, the response would likely be enormous. If these corporate groups believed their funding to be significantly threatened by this case, they would likely attempt to crush it with all available resources.
3. 3.      501(c)(4) “Super-PACS” (ex. Crossroads GPS) are considered “social welfare organizations” rather than political groups, thus these groups will still be able to spend limitless amounts of money in politics.
4. 4.      Wealthy individuals (ex. Sheldon Adelson) would be left completely untouched by this method of attacking money in politics. As individuals, not institutions, these rich people would be able to bypass the ban on publicly funded corporations and continue to spend limitless amounts of money as a form of political speech.
5. 5.      The “revolving doors” of politics and regulatory agencies would still be operational, thus corrupt political agents would still be able to benefit from their corporate patronage; hopefully, by reducing the ability of corporations to support such politicians while seeking re-election, these politicians would be more vulnerable to unseating.
6. 6.      As with all Supreme Court decisions, a future court can overrule this decision. Because of its lack of permanence, the use of the Supreme Court to challenge money in politics will always be inferior to the attempt grounded in pursuing a constitutional amendment.
7. 7.      By intentionally expanding Knox v. SEIU to cover corporations, it is possible to reduce the money in politics from all groups, regardless of partisanship. Partisan actors are unlikely to get behind the effort to disarm their political apparatus’s funding stream, regardless of whether or not it also disarms their opponents.

Petition: Tell Mitt Romney that Drilling for Oil in National Parks isn’t an Energy Solution

Tell Mitt Romney that Drilling for Oil in National Parks isn’t an Energy Solution

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/23673/tell-mitt-romney-that-drilling-for-oil-in-national-parks-isnt-an-energy-solution/

ENVIRONMENT, PETITIONS — BY JOSH SAGER ON JUNE 11, 2012 6:34 PM 

Target: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney

Goal: Convince Mitt Romney that opening the entire United States, including national parks, to oil drilling is not a valid plan to solve the nation’s energy problem.

Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican candidate for president, currently supports a policy of drastically increased drilling as a solution to the looming energy crisis in the United States. The United States is on an unsustainable energy consumption trajectory and will need additional energy sources if we desire to preserve our current lifestyle; as the potential future leader of the United States, Romney’s plans surrounding energy policy are vital, as are any consequences caused by these plans.

The official Romney campaign position on oil drilling is as follows: “Governor Romney will permit drilling wherever it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns.” While Romney’s energy plan is arguably ineffective, due to the limitations surrounding non-renewable resources, the primary problem with it is that protected national park land would be opened to oil exploration.

Under candidate Romney’s current energy plan, national parks – such as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon – would be opened to oil drilling and likely despoiled during the extraction process. Oil drilling is an environmentally dangerous process and will lead to the inevitable degradation of our national parks.

Putting aside the facts that the increased use of carbon-based fuels will exacerbate global climate change and that oil is not a renewable resource, drilling in national parks is not worth the damage that it causes. We need to preserve our country’s national parks, and cannot allow the short term need for energy to overshadow the permanent damage that can be done to our national treasures. Sign this petition to protest candidate Romney’s energy plan and stop the potential despoiling of our national parks.

• PETITION LETTER

Dear Candidate Mitt Romney,

Your current energy plan consists of opening the entire United States, including protected national land, to oil drilling. This plan, while it will increase short term energy supplies for the country, will lead to the inevitable degradation of our national parks.

Put plainly, the opening of national parks to oil drilling is not an effective policy and will harm the United States in the long term. The potential oil production gained from pillaging national park land will eventually disappear, yet the damage done to our national parks will remain forever.

Our national parks and historic landmarks should be protected from all encroachments, particularly encroachments which have the potential to render the protected land toxic for generations to come. I, as well as everybody else to sign this petition, implore you to abandon your plan to open national park land to oil exploration – there are safer, cleaner and less destructive methods of fixing our country’s energy problems.

Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]

Wisconsin Lost: The Test Case for a Post-Citizens United Political Landscape

By Josh Sager

In the face of the results from the recent Wisconsin recall election, several congratulations are in order: Congratulations to Governor Scott Walker for retaining his position of power, even in the face of a massive populist rejection of his policies. Congratulations to Walker for proving that, with enough money, even the most disliked and obviously corrupt politicians can remain in power. Congratulations to Walker for becoming the living example of why money must be removed from politics. Governor Walker’s attack on public sector union collective bargaining during the creation of the 2011 Wisconsin budget caused a virtual firestorm in the Wisconsin political landscape. Huge protests, including a massive sit-in at the statehouse, demonstrated just how controversial the union-busting amendment was to the general population. The reaction to the union-busting measures pushed by Walker became so extreme that numerous Democratic legislators actually fled the state in an attempt to block cloture (preventing a vote) on the budget. Unfortunately, the removal of collective bargaining rights eventually passed through the legislature - through the use of a highly controversial procedural loophole - and was signed by Walker. Throughout much of 2011, a large number of union and Democratic groups gathered signatures and organized in order to bring about recall elections of the politicians who support the union-busting measures. After a lengthy process, far more signatures than required were turned in and the recall was set. Unfortunately, a loophole in the Wisconsin election law, allowing for unlimited donations during recall elections, combined with the Citizen’s United V. FEC Supreme Court decision led to a situation where a figurative tsunami of money entered Wisconsin politics. The Wisconsin recall election has become a crystal ball into the future of American politics – a future where unlimited amounts of money are donated by anonymous billionaires and used to carpet-bomb the public with deceptive ads.

The following graphic, created by the Center for Public Integrity, demonstrates just how ridiculous the idea of unlimited donations is:

As you can see in the graphic, Scott Walker raised nearly eight times the amount of money then Tom Barrett, the Democratic challenger. A resource disparity of a factor of eight is absolutely ridiculous, and creates a virtually insurmountable obstacle for the party with the smaller amount of resources. With his vastly inferior resources, there was simply no way for Barrett to put up a credible fight against Walker. Unless we work to get rid of money in politics, it is likely that many future fundraising charts will look similar to this one – where the corporatist politician has virtually unlimited funding and the populist politician is left with virtually no way to fight back.

It is an unpleasant fact that people are fairly easy to trick, given enough organization and money supporting the effort; unfortunately, corporate political groups have both the money and the organizational knowledge to trick people into supporting their politicians. The major operational effect of removing the limits on political donations is that those with money will inevitably attempt to propagandize others to support their interests (regardless of whether this interests support those people). As the general public is usually ignorant about the specifics of policy, political dis-information campaigns regularly convince people to vote against their own interests or support candidates who are obviously not the best people for the job. Not only has the removal of donation limits led to the public being constantly bombarded with partisan propaganda, but loopholes in disclosure rules have led to thes campaigns being virtually anonymous; we simply don’t know who is giving to many major political groups (Ex. Crossroads GPS). Money in electoral politics used primarily to buy advertising and promote messaging. In political races where resources are largely equal between the parties, there is no way for one group to simply saturation-bomb the opposition with negative ads; for every ad that one side takes out, the other can respond and mitigate it with an opposing ad. Unlike in races where resource levels of the sides are similar, in races where the resource differential is large (Ex. a factor of eight), one side can buy up huge amounts of ad-space and overwhelm the other. The side with more resources simply buys huge amounts of advertising and drowns out the opposing side through sheer volume of propaganda. We have seen this phenomenon in the Republican primary race, where Romney used his superior resources to bludgeon the opposition – weak as it was – into submission, as well as in the recent Wisconsin recall. In less than a year, the propaganda campaign of Scott Walker transformed the atmosphere of protest - which spawned marches and fueled a massive recall effort – into one where he was able to capture over a third of the union households of Wisconsin. Even while the video of Walker discussing his “divide and conquer” strategy of breaking unions with a rich donor and the now-infamous “fake-Koch brother” audio tape circulated the internet, Walker was able to convince nearly a third of union households to vote for him. Propaganda works, but it requires money to propagate; due to his selling out to the rich, who desired unions be suppressed, Walker had all the money he needed to keep his position. In addition to the sheer volume of cash spent during the Walker recall, the sources of such money are absolutely vital to the understanding of the recall results. A majority (66% or $20.13 million) of Walker’s money came from out of state groups and individuals - agents which don’t actually have any stake in the recall, as they are not residing within the area of effect for the governor’s policies. These interests are national corporate groups looking to set a precedent, where repercussions against politicians who support anti-labor agendas are minimal. If politicians are emboldened to attack unions, because they no longer need to fear populist reprisals, more state politicians will be willing to sell out to corporate interests. A minority (34% or $10.37 million) of Walker’s fundraising came from in-state corporate interests and wealthy donors. Many of these donors benefit greatly from the reduction of labor rights within their state, because decreased union power depresses the wages for everybody. Tom Barrett raised a majority (74% or $2.886 million) of his money from in-state interests; a majority of this money came from unions groups and smaller donations. These groups are most likely those that are affected most by the union stripping measures of Walker, thus they had a compelling interest in recalling him. A vast minority (26% or $1.014 million) of the money raised by Barrett came from out of state donors. These donors consisted primarily of concerned liberals and union groups looking to impose punishments against Walker for his anti-union agenda. Just as corporate interest from other states desire a precedent of no consequences for selling out to corporations, unions desire accountability from these politicians.

To put the Walker recall funding source situation into perspective:

	Scott Walker	Tom Barrett	Differential
In-State Fundraising	$10.37 million	$2.886 million	+359.3% to Walker
Out of State Fundraising	$20.13 million	$1.014 million	+1985% to Walker

Not only did Walker raise far more money from donors, but a huge percentage of his donations came from out of state groups. While in-state Walker fundraising overtook Barrett’s by a factor of 359.3% (an incredible number), Walker’s out of state fundraising absolutely eclipsed Barrett’s by a factor of 1985%. The fact that Walker’s fundraising is so heavily skewed towards out of state donation points to the fact that union busting by corporate interests is a national issue. Unions in Wisconsin wanted to retain the ability to collectively bargain, but corporations are looking at a multi-state strategy. In essence, the Wisconsin unions and Tom Barrett were looking to serve the interest of their supporters in Wisconsin, while corporations and Scott Walker were looking to advance the national corporate fight against unions. Realistically, unions and interest groups looking out for average citizens will never be able to compete monetarily against corporate groups and individual billionaire donors. Corporations simply have too much money and unions will never be able to compete on an even playing field. This fundamental disparity in resources, combined with a system of unlimited political donations, leads to an unbalancing of the political playing field: the rich and corporations gain an advantage and slowly take over the political system. 

As demonstrated by the Walker recall, money in politics has a clear and devastating effect on the race. On average, the side with drastically more money wins the race against the side with more limited resources. Corporate money flows to the politicians who sell out to the interests of these corporations – reducing corporate taxes/regulation and giving them contracts – thus the corporate politicians will eventually take over any area where money is unrestricted. The attempted recall of Scott Walker, precipitated by his attacks on labor rights in Wisconsin, was the first large test of corporate money versus people - Unfortunately, in this case, money won. While it wasn't surrounding a particularly important political position, in the gard scheme of things, the recall fight against the Wisconsin Governor gave us a window into the future of politics. Huge amounts of money, oftentimes donated from groups not affected directly by the results of the elections, swamp the population with messaging. This messaging convinces the population to vote against their own interests and creates a self-sustaining cycle of corporations buying election after election. 

We must remove money from politics, lest our entire system of government become little more than a public auction between different corporate interest groups. We, as Americans, must organize and prevent all future elections from being as unbalanced as the recent Wisconsin recall. It isn't too late to act against corporate power in elections but we must act now, before the corporate interests capture the government even more than they have already. The only feasible method of barring money from elections is through a constitutional amendment. Several groups are working towards this goal, but they need help. Please, regardless of partisanship, donate your time and resources towards one of these groups and join the effort to protect American democracy.

Wolf PAC - The Effects of Corporate Lobbying Pt. 2

The Effects of Corporate Lobbying, Pt. 2

Posted by Natalia Real 37pc on May 31, 2012

By Josh Sager

Virtually nothing in society or politics happens in a vacuum -- policies which regulate or tax one group have a ripple effect which impacts the lives of many other members of society. Since lobbying has such a pronounced effect on policy aimed towards the welfare of those with lobbyists, it stands to reason that there will also be a significant impact on the rest of society.

Lobbying affects those who lack the resources to lobby as well as those who voluntarily abstain from lobbying in several negative ways: As tax revenue from those who lobby decreases, services are cut, taxes are increased on everybody else, or the national deficit increases; regulations which could benefit society are not passed, causing people to needlessly suffer from avoidable injuries such as toxic chemical exposure; our government eventually moves away from a system which respects the will of the people, and becomes a society where only the rich have a say in the public policy which is created.

Tax revenue is required by any government to sustain its operations. When tax revenue is lowered on a single segment of society, there is a ripple effect on policy which affects the rest of society. When tax cuts are given to a certain group in society, taxes can increase on other groups (imagine a pie where there are fewer slices, causing all slices to be larger if the pie is to remain the same size). In addition to tax increases on others, a reduction in overall spending and services by the government can be used to compensate for tax cuts obtained by those who lobby (imagine a pie where slices have been removed, thus reducing its volume). If, in the face of lobbied tax cuts, the government wants to sustain its spending, while not increasing taxes or the government, it can take out a debt (deficit) in order to operate. A deficit can be used to fund the government in the short term, but sustained and growing deficits are a serious risk to the integrity of a government (e.g., Greece).  

As corporations and the wealthy in the USA have used lobbying in order to lower their taxes, national and state tax revenues have been gradually depleted. The US government has compensated for decreased revenues from those who lobby politicians with a combination of austerity aimed at the middle class and the poor, combined with massive deficit spending. Throughout the national and state governments, public institutions have been receiving decreased funding (e.g., cutting the budgets of schools and police departments), particularly if their services are geared towards those who have no lobbying presence; this makes sense, as those with lobbyists wouldn’t let their services be cut when there are ways to offset the costs onto others. Cuts have simply not been deep enough yet to fill the gaping hole in our tax revenue, so the government has been required to drastically increase the national debt. The unwillingness of some politicians to tax those who supply them with lobbying money and campaign donations is slowly strangling the government, and rendering our taxing/spending policies unsustainable in the long run.  

Due to the high prevalence of industries which pollute or cut corners in order to make a profit, regulations are vital to the health of the modern society. By lobbying the government, corporations can decrease their regulatory burden far below the safe levels, creating the potential for disaster. Citizens are allowed to be harmed by corporations, just because certain corporations have rigged the legislative process in their favor. Unfortunately, for as long as money decides regulation rather than objective scientific analysis of the potential consequence, people will be harmed due to chronic under-regulation of dangerous industries.

In the USA, deregulation due to lobbying has caused several severe, yet entirely avoidable, disasters. Among these disasters, the financial collapseof 2008 and the BP oil spill are probably the best examples of catastrophes which have occurred directly due to lobbying-driven deregulation. 

Banking lobbyists were instrumental in the removal of banking and mortgage regulations during the last decade. Where previous banking regulations would have prevented the decisions which led to the collapse, deregulation removed these rules and paved the way towards the banking collapse. Even after the 2008 collapse, lobbying has prevented any serious regulations on the banks from being passed, opening us up to another potential collapse. 

The deregulation of oil drilling, both in the fields of rig safety and cleanup requirements, as pushed for by lobbyists spending billions over the last decade, was the major cause of the BP gulf oil spill. BP used inferior materials in the construction of its rig and didn’t construct a redundant shaft, thus creating a perfect storm for an oil spill. BP was allowed to operate so negligently because the extraction lobby in the USA is among the largest and most well-funded lobbies; they have killed regulation, pay virtually every politician involved in deciding oil policy, and get their people into positions of power in regulatory agencies. Any attempts to regulate extraction safety and pollution standards is seen as an attack by the oil lobby and is pushed back against immediately, creating a system where regulations are perpetually sub-par.

The effects of lobbying do not stop at the corporations and wealthy interests which use lobbyists. Every member of society is affected by decisions made by politicians controlled by lobbyist money, sometimes in ways which are not immediately apparent. We must remember that nobody in society is an island, and that the increase in profits for some may lead to increased cancer rates, ecological degradation or even economic collapse for the rest of us.

Wolf PAC - The Effects of Corporate Lobbying Pt. 1

The Effects of Corporate Lobbying, Pt. 1

Posted by Natalia Real 37pc on May 29, 2012

By Josh Sager

In a post-Citizen’s United v. FEC political landscape, lobbying has become a multi-billion dollar industry. The floodgates were opened by the Supreme Court -- which decided that money was speech, thus making political donations constitutionally protected -- and we are now seeing more money in politics than at any other time in recent history. With the gigantic amounts of money being spent by corporations on lobbying, those who study politics are faced with answering three questions, the answers of which are vital for understanding the new political landscape:

1. What are the policy results of lobbying?
2. How do the results of lobbying affect the rest of society?
3. Should citizens work towards getting money out of politics?

Only by understanding the results of lobbying, both on politicians as well as on the rest of society, can we understand why many Americans have begun pushing to separate money from politics. This is an uphill fight, against an adversary with virtually unlimited resources, and will likely take years to complete, if it is ever achieved.

As a corporation’s only goal is to make a profit, and close to $3.32 billion was spent by corporations to lobby the government in 2011 alone, the only logical conclusion is that corporations receive billions in benefits from their lobbying campaigns. The type of benefits from lobbying vary based upon the corporation doing the lobbying, but a majority of these benefits come in the form of reductions in taxes or regulations, government contracts, and sometimes favorable consideration under the law.

While the base corporate tax rate in the USA is relatively high (35%), most corporations pay only a small percent of this rate due to loopholes and subsidies. These loopholes and subsidies are protected (or even increased) by politicians who receive money from corporate lobbyists; the more lobbying a company does, the more likely it is to receive tax breaks and loopholes.

According to a 2010 study by the Daylight Foundation, which used tax data to correlate increases in lobbying with decreases in real taxes paid for corporations, many of the top corporations in the USA have utilized millions in lobbying to save billions in taxes. As calculated in this study, between 2007 and 2009, the top eight lobbying spenders (Exxon Mobil, Verizon, GE, At&T, Altria, Amgen, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing) gave approximately $540 million via lobbying; by 2010, these companies had seen a reduction in taxes of approximately $11 billion. The potential return on investment demonstrated here is over 2,000% -- a higher rate of return of most any investment other than a winning lottery ticket. 

Regulatory laws and agencies are under the control of politicians, many of whom take money from lobbyists. In a manner virtually identical to tax rates, regulations decrease as corporate lobbying goes up. Corporate interests which cause pollution or pose a risk to public safety can reduce regulations, thus decreasing their costs, by lobbying politicians who control their regulations.

Tobacco and extraction (oil, coal, and gas) companies are the largest beneficiaries from reduced regulations, mostly due to the fact that their products are toxic to consumers and bystanders. Over the years, regulations have been slowed or suppressed totally by lobbying from these industries, increasing these industries’ profits by billions; a perfect recent example of this phenomenon is that of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). Due to regulatory loopholes put in place by politicians -- who received thousands from extraction lobbyists -- fracking companies don’t even need to disclose what chemicals they are pumping into the ground. Despite evidence that these chemicals are toxic to humans and animals, can pollute groundwater or even render it highly flammable, and sometimes cause earthquakes, this loophole persists; there is no possible rationale for this continued lack of disclosure other than the effects of corporate lobbying swaying politicians (exploding water, higher cancer rates, and random earthquakes should sway even the most recalcitrant politician to action, barring the interference of money).

While Americans would like to believe that the law is applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or money, this is not always the case. Corporate lobbying is sometimes directed at preventing legal action against a company for illegal acts. The largest, and most consequential, example of a corporation mitigating legal consequences with money is that of the Wall Street banks. In 2008, the U.S. economy crashed, largely due to the systemic fraud perpetrated by the country’s top five banks. Despite clear proof of their crimes, banks received bailouts to save themselves, avoided any new regulations, and have yet to encounter any prosecution for fraud. These banks came within a hairbreadth of destroying the world economy and caused trillions in damage, yet there has been no accountability for those responsible. There can be only one of two explanations for this lack of legal accountability: Either bankers and banks managed to evade responsibility through targeted “donations” and lobbying to key legislators, or these same officials are merely so incompetent and spineless that they are unwilling to take on the banks.    

While the previously mentioned benefits are the most common goals of lobbying, there are many other ways that corporations benefit from their lobbying. Government contracts are often given out to corporations which have spent significant amount of money in lobbying (e.g., Boeing). Lobbying can get corporations increased access to information and allow for them to take advantage of opportunities which those without access would miss (e.g., JP Morgan execs being briefed about the impending bailouts). The limits on what lobbying can get a corporation are only limited by the willingness to sell out of the politician in question and the money spent by the corporation. As lobbying has an exceptional investment return rate and some politicians have been known to support virtually anything for the right amount of money, it is likely that lobbying will continue for as long as it is legal for huge amounts of money to interfere with politics.

Petition: Debt Ceiling Deal

Tell Republicans not to Threaten another Government Shutdown

PETITIONS, POLITICS — BY JOSH SAGER ON MAY 18, 2012 11:18 AM 

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/21178/tell-republicans-not-to-threaten-another-government-shutdown/

Target: Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Goal: To demand that the Republican Party honor the debt ceiling deal so the economic recovery is not put at risk.

In 2011, there was a near shut-down of the federal government over an increase to the debt ceiling. In order to reach an agreement, thus preventing a shutdown, a deal was struck between the Republicans in the Legislature and President Obama. Unfortunately, recent comments by Republican politicians point towards an impending reneging on the terms of this deal, potentially causing another shutdown.

The deal reached between Obama and the Republican legislature had multiple parts, and didn’t give anybody everything that they wanted. The debt ceiling was raised by $400 billion immediately upon passage of the compromise, and could periodically be raised further by the Obama Administration, but these increases could be subject to a congressional motion of disapproval (which Obama could simply veto).

In return for capitulating on the increase to the debt ceiling, the Republicans got several concessions:

1. Spending was to be cut by more than the debt increase.
2. Democrats capitulated on the desire for tax increases.
3. A balanced budget amendment to the constitution was brought to a vote (it failed).
4. A bipartisan super-congress was created to deal with debt reduction, and automatic triggers for a lack to agree guaranteed cuts.

Despite the terms of the debt deal being agreed upon, Republican Party leaders have recently signaled a desire to make the debt ceiling a fight again. In an interview this week, John Boehner signaled a potential impending fight over the final installment of the debt ceiling increase, as agreed upon last year: “Allowing America to default would be irresponsible. But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process.”

Regardless of one’s partisan affiliation, most people can agree that another potential government shutdown will cause immense damage to the country’s fragile economic recovery and would harm millions of Americans. Millions of American families would not receive benefits and could fall below the poverty line and, depending upon the length of the shutdown, government jobs could be lost; we cannot afford either of these consequences, particularly considering the absolutely unnecessary nature of the fight. A deal was struck to avert this crisis last year, and those terms (whether or not one likes them) should be stuck to by both Democrats and Republicans.

This petition is intended for the two top legislative branch Republicans, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, and is intended to dissuade them from reneging upon the 2011 debt ceiling compromise. We, as a country, cannot afford needless political brinksmanship in our currently fragile economic situation.

PETITION LETTER

Dear Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,

As the federal legislative branch leaders of your party, you are in a position to avert an impending political crisis. The debt ceiling must be raised again, as agreed upon during the negotiations last year, lest the fragile economic recovery collapse. The only serious consequence of the last debt ceiling fight was a downgrade by the rating company Standard and Poor’s, but we may not be that lucky this time.

Whether or not you fully support the terms of the debt ceiling deal, it remains that this deal was willingly struck and has been held to by the Democratic Party. A vote was held on your constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget, spending was cut, the super-congress met for weeks, and no new taxes have been levied, thus showing that the Democratic party has held its end of the bargain.

The Republican Party should not violate the terms of their side of the debt ceiling deal, lest they lose all future bargaining credit and risk causing the U.S. economy to fall back into recession. If the Democratic Party cannot trust the Republican Party to keep their end of a political agreement (or vise-versa), the process of debate and agreement between the parties decays.

Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]

5 Important Reasons to Reject Mitt Romney

By Josh Sager

Now that all of the competition is out of the running, Willard “Mitt” Romney has become the heir apparent to the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. The Republican primary was one for the record-books, where a slew of colorful and interesting candidates crawled out of the woodwork to possibly capture the presidential nomination. There is a strong argument that Mitt Romney won the nomination, not by any charisma or skill of his own, but by a combination of an incredibly weak opposition, unlimited funds, and sheer persistence.


Based upon the low turnouts at state primaries and the explosive rises of multiple “not-Romney” candidates, it appears that nobody actually likes Romney but, because he is not insane (unlike Bachmann), not imbecilic (unlike Perry), not obviously evil (unlike Newt Gingrich), not a serial-philanderer (unlike Cain) and not Ron Paul, he became the de-facto choice. It is a sad day in American politics where a major political party chooses their candidate due to their  lack of being absolutely insane, ignorant, or immoral and not for their vision or personal triumphs.

While I am a progressive, and would never vote for a right wing candidate, there are several characteristics of Romney that should disqualify him, even to conservative voters. Put plainly, even I can identify the fact that the Republican Party has better and more legitimate candidates than Romney; they just chose not to run them this election cycle.

Out of all potential issues with Romney’s character (and there are many) I see five major problems with him, and would hope that the Republicans also identify these characteristics and vote for some other candidate Either Obama or a minor party). 


1. His “Etch-A-Sketch” policy positions
In New England there is a saying: “If you don’t like the weather, wait 10 minutes”. This cultural joke is based upon the rapid weather shifts (downpour to clear skies in minutes) sometimes experienced in the northeast. Unfortunately, Romney’s policy positions seem to be as flexible and changing as this saying would label New England weather – if you want a total change in Romney’s policy positions, just wait a few minutes.

Probably the largest and most troubling issue with Mitt Romney’s character (and thus his presidential candidacy) is the fact that he seems to have few immutable positions. While some policy evolution is expected over a political career, Romney has taken this to the very extreme by having supported both sides of every important issue. 

Romney’s apparent lack of core values is vitally important because it makes it impossible to determine what he will do in power - will he be the centrist from Massachusetts, or the “severe conservative” of today? If one looks at Mitt Romney’s policy positions in 2003 (at the beginning of his MA governorship) and his views today, virtually every policy position is at its polar opposite - here are a few important examples:


Healthcare → from writing “RomneyCare” to declaring the similar “ObamaCare” an unconstitutional assault)


Immigration → from supporting the dream act and compassion, to demanding “self-deportation” and supporting discriminatory laws


Abortion → from being a pro-choice donor to Planned Parenthood, to supporting a constitutional ban on abortion and a defunding of Planned Parenthood


Gay Rights → from supporting civil unions to demanding constitutionally enshrined discrimination


It absolutely strains credulity to claim that Romney has shifted all of his political positions from one end of the spectrum to the other out of anything but opportunism. People’s views on policy are constantly adapting but, barring some severe head trauma, these views rarely shift from one end of the political spectrum to the polar opposite position.  


Romney has undergone a polar shift on virtually every issue of importance, demonstrating that he is either a pragmatic political opportunist (only supporting policy positions which he believes will get him elected), or schizophrenic (having two different personalities, each with their own ideologies). Either potential explanation as to Romney’s bipolar political ideology should disqualify him for consideration the minds of the voters.


If you are still considering voting for Romney, ask yourself these two questions: What will you do if Romney shakes his policy “etch-a-sketch” and decides to erase his current ideology for his next incarnation? Can you take the chance that your candidate will invert his views upon getting into office (as he has a history of doing), or should you vote for somebody who has a consistent record of supporting your ideology?


2. His profound lack of convictions
Put plainly, Romney is a political chameleon and holds nothing sacred enough to compromise his political standing for. In the current climate of war, terrorism, corruption and very powerful special interests, the United States needs somebody with guts and the willingness to put themselves on the line for the American people to hold the presidency. Romney, who has no core values (as described above) will never put himself on the line politically to stand on principle. 

One only need look at the appointment, and near immediate forcing out of foreign policy adviser Richard Grenell to see this lack of convictions in action. Romney chose to hire a foreign policy adviser – Grenell - who he clearly saw as both experienced and competent; within two weeks, Grenell was forced out of his position, not because of any mistake on his part, but because he is gay and conservative groups were making noise. This firing proves that Romney is willing to put personal political gain over policy integrity. If 
Romney saw Grenell as the best man for the job, yet fired him because his personal life offends a small group of bigots, this raises large concerns over his ability to prioritize sound policy over the clamor of bigots.


If Romney were to become president, he would represent the status quo (which is currently broken) and we would have little chance to progress as a country. Probably the most that the country could hope for from Romney would be his performance as a ventriloquist doll, with various special interests and political ideologues controlling his every move.


Many would claim that Obama has shown the same timidity held by Romney on his personal conviction, but this is immaterial. If one candidate has a weakness, it does not excuse the same weakness in the other candidate – that path only forces a choice between two evils. There are Republican politicians who have very strong convictions (not ones I agree with, but there is no argument as to the depth of their conviction) and are far more deserving of the presidential nomination (Ex. Chris Christy and Ron Paul). 


3. His endorsement of the Ryan Budget in addition to crippling austerity
Mitt Romney has thrown his support behind the 2012 “Ryan Budget”, even referring to it as “marvelous”. While everybody is entitled to their own political opinions, Romney’s support for this budget signals his priorities in governing and should be used to determine whether or not he deserves support. 

The Ryan Budget would slash taxes for the wealthy, explode the national deficit, increase defense spending, and cripple most social assistance programs. By all objective assessments, this budget is simply a giveaway to the rich and an evisceration of programs aimed at the poor. If the Ryan Budget were to be signed into law, the federal government would be cut to the bone – destroying innumerable public sector jobs and reducing infrastructure investment -  and the economic recovery would likely halt.
When Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, he led the state to be 47th in job creation nationally. Even disregarding the fact that one of the states which he beat in job creation was Louisiana, which was hit by Hurricane Katrina, this job creation record is absolutely abysmal. The United States simply cannot afford to have such a president with such a terrible job creation record at the helm during a time of economic hardship.  


4. His unconditional support for corporations


In the current political climate, corporate involvement in, and interference with, government has become a vital issue. Romney has consistently supported tax breaks and decreased regulations for corporations, as well as the mass privatization of public services. Ironically, these views are probably the only views which have remained consistent for Romney’s entire career (from being the head of Bain Capital, to the Republican candidacy), thus they are the only ones which the public can truly trust. If Romney were to be elected to the presidency, there is little doubt that corporate interests would be celebrating in their boardrooms.


Romney’s support for corporations seems so reflexive that even a $3 billion loss during a single week incurred by JP Morgan has not shaken his support. In response to the staggering loss to JP Morgan, demonstrating the true danger of economic collapse which we still live under, Romney said that nothing should be done to prevent future losses, and that such losses are just part of business; the United States cannot afford a president with such a caviler and naïve outlook at corporate excesses.  

“Corporations are people, my friend”

- Mitt Romney; August 11, 2012 -

While the law recognizes corporations as people, as the law relates to free speech and political spending, it is rare for a politician to so clearly announce this in public. Romney appears to have spoken his actual belief, when he proclaimed that he sees corporations as people. Judging by this statement, it is unlikely that we would see campaign finance reform or a curbing of corporate interference in government during a Romney presidency – this is something that nobody, not Tea Partier, Occupier, conservative or liberal can support, or even tolerate. 


5. His utter lack of human empathy

Romney has spent his entire life without showing a significant amount of human empathy, conscience or social responsibility. While these traits are not required to be the president, they ensure that a politician doesn't take callous, immoral actions once in power or decide to ignore the plight of minorities of citizens.


Looking at his work history, we see that Romney made an industry out of human misery. As a pioneer of vulture capitalism and the Founder of Bain Capital, Romney systematically bought, drained, and eventually killed companies; Romney’s work history is similar to that of a spider killing its prey: capturing weaker organisms, liquidating their insides, and sucking out the resources before leaving empty husks. As vulture capitalism is not illegal, merely parasitic and immoral, Romney hasn’t actually done anything wrong, but this should be taken into account when he asks to be given control of our country.

In his personal life, Romney has shown indifference to suffering and a lack of social responsibility. Early in his life, Romney was a bigot and a bully. While this should not disqualify him from any position, it, in combination with other factors, points towards his predatory and callous nature. Romney’s tying his dog to the car for a long trip - simply hosing it off and continuing when the dog lost bowel controls due to fear - shows that even when the victim is a close personal contact, he still operates in clinical and callous manner.


In both his personal and professional lives, Romney has never show an ounce of conscience or empathy. This borderline sociopathic personality leads to the important question: If you aren’t rich and entirely self-sufficient, can you risk giving Romney, who will feel nothing regardless of what his policy does to you or your family, the deciding vote over policy affecting your family?