patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Tom Ashbrook and a Panel Discussing Pushing Back on Money Politics, 2012

Panel discussed the roll of money and corporations in the current elections.

 

 

The staggering amount of money in contemporary politics has frustrated voters and created a climate of disparity for concerned citizens hoping to influence legislation. The 2010 Citizens United decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is at the focal point of the current controversy on a national level.

The League of Women Voters of Concord-Carlisle, a non-partisan, issues oriented organization of women and men of all ages and backgrounds, hosted Pushing Back on Money Politics, 2012, moderated by Tom Ashbrook, host of NRP’s On Point with a panel of experts at the Concord Carlisle Regional High School auditorium on Thursday evening to discuss the issue of big spending in the 2012 elections.

The panel consisted of Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law School, and Director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, Jeff Clements, attorney and author of Corporations Are Not People, and Mimi Marziani, Counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law.

“We are up against some seriously difficult dynamics,” Ashbrook told the audience, “We know something isn’t right and that the power of money is corrupting the politics of our republic. But the big question remains: What can be done?”

Professor Lawrence Lessig presented a lecture on institutional corruption in Congress. “This corruption is not illegal,” Lessig said. “There is nothing criminal about the institutional corruption or dependent corruption in Congress today. Our framers gave us a Republic by which they meant a representative Democracy, with the house of government dependent on the people alone. Congress no longer depends on people, but increasingly on the funders.”

Lessig told the packed auditorium that members of Congress spend 30 to 70 percent of their time raising money to get back to Congress. He cited a quote from Virginia Congresswomen, Leslie Byrne, who said that when she reached Congress, a colleague said, “Always lean towards the green. He was not an environmentalist.”

Lessig then dissected the difference between “The People” and “The Funders:” Lessig said that 196 individual Americans are responsible for 80 percent of the money in the Super PACS in 2011.

“The tiniest slice of the population fund the vast majority of campaigns in this country. This is corruption relative to the framer’s baseline,” Lessig said. “Americans believe that money buys results in Congress. That belief erodes the trust we have in the in the institutions. There were a higher percentage of Americans who believed in the British Crown at the time of the Revolution than who believe in the Congress today.” With the erosion of trust comes a drop off in voter participation, thus, a self-fulfilling prophecy in futility. 

Lessig and his group, Rootstrikers, propose we clean up politics by providing that public elections are publicly funded, limiting independent political expenditure and making them transparent and by reaffirming that when the Declaration of Independence spoke of entities “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights,” it was speaking of natural persons only. He quoted Ben Franklin, who described the constructs of this country as “a Republic if you can keep it.”

Mimi Marziani spoke next, discussing how the feeling of powerlessness amongst individuals has contributed to a lack of voting and that even the well-educated members of our society do not understand the political systems we abide in, creating the contemporary climate of political divisiveness nation wide.

“There is no silver bullet to fix these problems,” Marziani said. “The issue of transparency in campaign finance is the first step in improvements. There needs to be a system that ensures that Super PACs truly are independent from candidates and the system must encourage small donor public finances. And finally, the system must facilitate easier voting, and voter registration. This needs to be less of a burden on potential voters.“

Jeff Clements, a Concord resident, attorney and author of Corporations Are Not People pushed for a Constitutional Amendment to over turn Citizens United.

“This is the method we use to fix things when the Supreme Court goes off the rails," he said. "The Supreme Court ruled that women couldn’t vote. They ruled that blacks essentially are not citizens and should not be held to the same standards as whites. They ruled that we couldn’t have progressive income tax. All of these were over ruled by the people through the Constitutional Amendment process, which needs a two-thirds vote in congress and a three-fourths vote from the states.”

When the lectures and speeches gave way to open forum and frustration was at the forefront of the questions from the audience. One audience member said, ”I feel like a lot of politicians are behaving like prostitutes these days.” In the midst of a semi-awkward silence, Tom Ashbrook retorted, “Let’s not be insulting to prostitutes now.” This received a roar of laughter and the conversation resumed with questions on how to move forward.  

Afterward, there was a book signing and a gathering in the CCHS cafeteria.

“We had a great panel tonight,” Ashbrook said. “You really could feel the intensity and passion in the room.”

Related Topics: Cchs, Citizens United, League of Women Voters of Concord and Carlisle, and Tom Ashbrook

Allen Nitschelm

3:02 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012

Not everyone is upset that corporations are now on an equal footing with unions and others in being able to have political speech. While many people might disagree fundamentally with government-sector unions, they have as much right to free speech as any other group. Ill-conceived movements like this will restrict both sides. If we are going to err, let's err on the side of more speech, not less. Because one day the politicians will try to silence something you hold dear, and you will be thankful to have organized opposition that is not restricted by the power-brokers, artificially limiting their ability to speak.

Why is the left so afraid of free speech? If you don't like the message, then turn the channel, shut off the radio, or find a new website. No one is forced to listen to this speech, so what's the problem?

Reply

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

4:52 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012

The League of Women Voters is not a non-partisan organization. Check out the television ads it ran against Brown and McCaskill regarding their vote on overreaching EPA legislation. Ask the League where the money for these attack ads came from.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Reply

Janet Beyer

10:10 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Allen, for a history and explanation of the Citizen's United case, I recommend Jeffrey Toobin's article in last week's New Yorker. Indeed, more free speech from the people rather than from moneyed PACs is one reason for anger at the decision.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Allen Nitschelm

10:26 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Hi Janet,

"Moneyed PACs" are made up of people; these aren't organizations from Mars! Both parties use them, plus there are already several loopholes that allow virtually unlimited donations to campaigns (through state parties, for example) so wealthy individuals can still have a huge influence even if we were to restrict corporate speech.

This issue was going to come up at Acton Town Meeting, but the proponents pulled it at the last minute, perhaps because there might be significant opposition. And at that time, we had a discussion of this. I was surprised to hear that about half of the proponents didn't think this would apply to unions, and have were OK with it applying to unions.

So if we can restrict corporate speech, and union speech, how about non-profit group speech, like the League of Women Voters? I wonder if proponents are OK with that as well. Pretty soon, all of the "speech" will be from candidates and no one will be able to voice an effective response because any collective response will be prohibited.

No thanks!

Allen

Allen Nitschelm

10:27 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012

*and half (not have) were OK with that..."

AN

Reply

Leave a comment