General Discussion

applegrove

(118,622 posts) Mon May 25, 2015, 09:13 PM May 2015

Why Citizens United Just Scratches the Surface

Why Citizens United Just Scratches the Surface

by Adam Lioz and Brenda Wright at the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-lioz/why-citizens-united-just-scratches-the-surface_b_7344080.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

"SNIP.................

But the reality is that Citizens United merely added fuel to an already blazing fire -- and returning to the "glory days" before the decision will not create an America where we all have an equal say over the government decisions that affect our lives.

There are two reasons for this. First, many of the unlimited contributions driving the sharp rise in "outside spending" have come from wealthy individuals rather than corporate treasuries. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, for example, gave more than $92 million to Super PACs in the 2012 cycle. But, because of flawed Supreme Court decisions long before Citizens United, they would still be allowed to spend every cent of that money even if Citizens United is overturned, as long as they spend it themselves instead of by contributing to a political committee.

Moreover, money in politics has long played a profound--and unseen--role in shaping the field of candidates. A narrow band of wealthy donors acted as gatekeepers to public power well before Citizens United and would continue to do so if just that decision is reversed. We're seeing this now, as presidential hopefuls compete for donor support before even officially declaring as candidates.

But it's just as prevalent in filtering the candidate pool in races for Congress or state house. Candidates for U.S. Senate, for example, need to raise $3,300 every day for six years just to keep pace with their rivals -- and typically get the majority of that money in contributions of at least $1000 from a fraction of one percent of the population.

.................SNIP"