Citizens United v. FEC is Irrelevant to Real Campaign Finance Reform

[Truth2Tell]

Yes, this is an egregious decision that will further extend corporate power over our gasping democracy. Yes, the practical results promise to be ugly for anti-corporate politicians. And yes, The US Supreme Court has been hijacked by a band of Federalist Society fascists who have used this decision to extend and shore-up the powers established in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. But that's about corporate power - not campaign finance reform.

When it comes to real campaign finance reform, this decision is moot. Here's why:

The truth is that our system of financing our democratic process in America is right now functionally corrupt. Those with the most resources already largely control the outcome of the process, with only anecdotal exceptions. Every legislative or legal effort to achieve campaign finance reform by blocking the flow of those resources into the political process has failed - including the relatively ineffective law overthrown by yesterday's decision.

Those with money find a way to influence political outcomes - such is an historical and human impulse very difficult to block - like blocking the flow of a stream downhill. Anyone paying even a little attention understands that there is no new "floodgate" of campaign money ready to open and pour into the system, because the system is already swamped. This decision will re-route the flow in some ways - how significantly is yet to be seen. But the stream - the river - is already flowing full force and has been for some time.

When we focus on these ineffective and largely symbolic (sorry mccain/feingold fans) measures designed to re-route or block the money used to purchase our democracy - we miss the much larger problem of our democracy being for sale to begin with. What we need to be asking is why it requires so much money to win in American politics.

How is the process of informing voters of their choices carried out? What medium must candidates use to deliver that message if they want to successfully participate in our democracy? Who owns that medium - the people who control it right now or the American people? Why don't the people who own it use it to empower and enable a more functional democracy? Why is that medium so crucial to a functioning democracy being sold back to the highest bidder for a profit and distorting the outcome of our democratic process?

Until we stop placing the most crucial element of our democratic process up for sale, we can't be surprised when those with money find ways to buy what we're selling.

We need to take back our public airwaves and begin to use them to provide free air time to candidates for public office.

It's our only exit at this point. It's more doable than a Constitutional amendment, and would be much more effective because it would actually remove part of our process from the auction block, rather than just trying to limit how much of it everyone can buy.

Until we take back the airwaves or otherwise publicly finance political campaigns, the implications of Citizens United v. FEC on campaign finance reform will remain rather insignificant in the big picture.

[robinlynne]

1. It seems to me the opposite is true. The court decision makes public financing moot.

WE have been supporting public financing for a long time. This decision will mean that candidates who MIGHT have accepted public financing no longer will do so.

[Truth2Tell]

2. We haven't tried a REAL

public financing program on a Federal level, only half-hearted efforts.

[robinlynne]

5. speak for yourself. We are working hard here in california. The sec of state's

office is about to become a publicly financed office, as a blueprint for more offices.
(I can't say we. I support the campaign, but have not been actively working on it.)

[Truth2Tell]

6. working for it is different than having done it.

we are working for it here in Washington too. And Maine and Arizona have already done it with much success. But it still has never been done on the Federal level.

[leftstreet]

3. K&R

Very good points

[Truth2Tell]

4. ...

http://www.campaignmoney.org/campaigns/main/fair-elections

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), along with Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) have introduced the Fair Elections Now Act (S.752, H.R.1826) in Congress. The legislation would bring a Clean Elections-modeled program to congressional races.

[Truth2Tell]

7. Sign The Fair Elections Now Act Petition!

http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/