Good afternoon, Daily Kos readers. This is your afternoon open thread to discuss all things Hill-related. Use this thread to praise or bash Congresscritters, share a juicy tip, ask questions, offer critiques and suggestions, or post manifestos.
As always, this is a crosspost from Congress Matters and Progressive Electorate.
All the Hill news that fit to blog is over the fold...
America, Inc.
In case you hadn't heard, the Supreme Court struck down limits on corporations spending money on political campaigns:
In a 5 to 4 decision, the majority cast its ruling as a spirited defense of the First Amendment, concluding that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech. Corporations had been banned since 1947 from using their profits to endorse or oppose political candidates, a restriction that the justices ruled unconstitutional.
Republicans are celebrating and Democrats are seething. Why? Probably because corporate interests are more likely to support the party of big business. And the great news for them, they get to wrap all of their rhetoric around great pronouncements about free speech.
That's the short version and probably enough information for the average citizen to get the gist of what's going on. There is, however, a little more to the story:
Corporations, trade associations, unions and nonprofit groups still aren't allowed to make direct contributions to federal politicians, but today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend unlimited amounts of money advocating for or against politicians.
In doing do, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, tossed out the distinction between individuals and corporations and their ilk when it comes to independent expenditures.
"This Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. "That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."
(Bold is mine)
What this means is that businesses, big and small, still cannot give directly to a candidate. When you see reports about "businesses" contributing to campaigns, the money technically is being given by employees, though Federal Election Commission reports require that donors list their employers. What big business can do is independently support a candidate and I would assume that the rules forbidding cooperation between independent expenditure groups and campaigns to remain in force.
The problem, of course, is that this means very little to the average voter. A message is a message, as the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" proved in 2004.
All of that makes me wonder if this ruling will really make as much difference as we think it will. I'm not saying it won't make any difference, but it is a real game changer.
I do have a problem with one part of the legal reasoning. We can argue all day about the effects of this ruling and whether or not the justices were working in the nation's best interest. Here's my problem with the ruling. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the court first granted limited personhood to corporations. The upshot is that Citizen Walmart has many of the same rights as Citizen Casual Wednesday. The central problem is that Citizen Walmart has more power to get exemptions for things like polluting and wage slavery. At any rate, if we were to apply the logic of campaign contributions to corporations, they would be limited to the following guidelines, just like Citizen CW:
An individual may give a maximum of:
* $2,400 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.2 Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections.
* $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC. This limit applies to a PAC (political action committee) that supports Federal candidates. (PACs are neither party committees nor candidate committees. Some PACs are sponsored by corporations and unions--trade, industry and labor PACs. Other PACs, often ideological, do not have a corporate or labor sponsor and are therefore called nonconnected PACs.) PACs use your contributions to make their own contributions to Federal candidates and to fund other election-related activities.
* $10,000 per calendar year to a State or local party committee. A State party committee shares its limits with local party committees in that state unless a local committee's independence can be demonstrated.
* $30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee. This limit applies separately to a party's national committee, House campaign committee and Senate campaign committee.
* $115,500 total biennial limit. This biennial limit places a ceiling on your total contributions, as explained below.
* $100 in currency (cash) to any political committee. (Anonymous cash contributions may not exceed $50.) Contributions exceeding $100 must be made by check, money order or other written instrument.
Full disclosure: Citizen CW doesn't have that kind of scratch.
Finally, in something of an ironic twist, 40 corporate executives have made it clear that they are sick of candidates begging for money.
Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers - and fear it will only get worse after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.
If anyone is interested, the court's full decision is available as a .pdf here.
****
RNC is in the red
The ruling might be good news for Michael Steele since the RNC is spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave:
The Republican National Committee (RNC) continued to burn money faster than it raised contributions in December 2009, the committee announced Friday.
The RNC reported raising $6.6 million in December, but spent nearly $7 million and saw its cash on hand drop from $8.7 million to $8.4 million.
****
Don't move so fast on Health Care
Chris Dodd says we should slow down on the health care reform debate.
A top Senate Democrat on Friday suggested lawmakers "take a breather for a month, six weeks" from healthcare reform.
Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) told reporters the much-needed break would allow lawmakers to focus on other issues before the chamber.
So, er, um, yeah. Isn't that what the Republicans were trying to force all last year?
Meanwhile, Eugene Robinson wants the Obama Administration to keep fighting the good fight.
If President Obama has decided to give up on health-care reform, he should just come out and say so. Then we could all get on with our lives -- those of us with health insurance, that is. But I don't see how his talk about some sort of slimmed-down package, reduced to its "core elements," could possibly inspire Democrats in Congress to do anything but run for the hills.
****
Ben Bernanke
It's looking more and more like Ben Bernanke might be out of a job soon.
Three more senators, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), announced Friday their opposition to a second term for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
"It is time for a change," Boxer said in a statement. "Our next Federal Reserve chairman must represent a clean break from the failed policies of the past."
Feingold said, "Under the watch of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve permitted grossly irresponsible financial activities that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression."
Additionally, Bernie Sanders has used the infamous "hold" power to force a 60 votes requirement on confirmation. We might as well start speculating now on who the Administration will dig up to replace him. Gods help us if it's Geithner.
****
2010 Midterms
The National Journal has a list of the 25 most vulnerable House seats.
You'll see that reflected below in The Hotline's first House race rankings of 2010. Of the 25 races in our list of the most vulnerable seats, 20 are Dem-held seats. You'll also notice a large number of open seats toward the top of the list. Several vulnerable Dem incumbents sitting in GOP-leaning districts have announced their retirements in the last few months.
Maybe we need to find some friendly corporate interests.
****
The truck arrives in DC
Scott Brown is now in DC and he implies that he won't be a typical obstructionist Republican.
Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was still in campaign mode Thursday as he chatted up reporters, senators and tourists during his first trip to the Capitol after his upset special election victory earlier this week.
A Republican elected in a strongly blue state, Brown preached the virtues of bipartisanship and declared, "I’m willing to look at every bill on its merits."
We shall see.
On a related note, TPMDC has a round up of the media fail that comes with the Republicans achieving their 41 vote super-minority in the Senate.
****
Outlaw Global Warming science
No, I'm not making things up. From Think Progress:
After hottest decade in history, senators attempt to outlaw science of global warming.
As scientists announce that the 2000s were the hottest decade in recorded history, U.S. senators are working to outlaw the reality of global warming. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration reported yesterday that 2009 is "tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began," after 2005, the hottest year in history. Meanwhile, thirty-nine senators introduced a resolution to reverse the finding that global warming pollution is a threat to public health and welfare
It. Could. Work. After we made pot illegal, there was no more pot around. Let's see if it works on global warming.
****
Erroll Southers
Jim DeMint has decided that there are a lot more important things than having someone in charge of TSA. Like union busting. DeMint's hold on the nomination of Erroll Southers, a solid choice to lead TSA, withdrew his name from consideration.
That prompted Rachel Maddow to wonder whether President Obama should reach into the Bush playbook and do a recess appointment. Southers thinks that's a splendid idea:
MADDOW: There are a lot of people in the country who look at the politics of your nomination and want this administration to have fought for you, to have made an example of Jim DeMint for dismissing national security in favor of this no-win dog-and- pony show about unions, to have recess-appointed you if need be, to have made a fist-pounding speech about it to ward off any other obstructionist shenanigans like that. that. If the administration hypothetically had second thoughts and decided to renominate you and handle it like that, would you do it? Would you try it again? [...]
SOUTHERS: Yes, I would do it. I’m committed to the mission. I tried to convince Senator DeMint it was about the mission.
And I like it, too.
****
Bachmann and Buchanan
Today's Most Important News of the Day™ is a double shot of stupid.
First Pat Buchanan asks "Has Obama Lost White America?" Meanwhile, White America asks if Buchanan has lost his marbles.
Immigrants are 21 percent of the uninsured, but only 7 percent of the population. This means white folks on Medicare or headed there will see benefits curtailed, while new arrivals from the Third World, whence almost all immigrants come, get taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. Any wonder why all those tea-party and town-hall protests seem to be made up of angry white folks?
He is right, though. The teabaggers are incredibly pale and oh, so downtrodden and discriminated against.
Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann has decided she wants to be all presidential and stuff:
Bachmann said the event is scheduled for Wednesday, the same day on which Obama will deliver the State of the Union address.
"We're gonna have a press conference at the Capitol, because that's the State of the Union that evening, and we're going to have a press conference about where we go from here," Bachmann said on Glenn Beck's radio program on Friday.
And I'm gonna cover my ears so they don't bleed from too much shrill stupid. Thanks for playing, though.
Have a good weekend.