Visual source: Newseum
Do you want your very own presidential candidate action figure that you can control and manipulate during an election? It's all yours for the price tag of a few million dollars.
As billionaire puppeteers have been able to more brazenly, transparently and literally buy the candidacy of prospective POTUS nominees, the chorus is growing in the traditional media that natural and ugly byproduct of Citizens United -- letting the wealthiest Americans put their own price tag on candidates -- is a real threat to American democracy.
The New York Times:
The presidential primary season is being brought to you by a handful of multimillionaires and companies who have propped up the candidates with enormous donations to their “super PACs.” Just two dozen or so individuals, couples and companies have given more than 80 percent of the money collected by super PACs, or $54 million, according to disclosure forms released on Monday. [...]
The people writing these outsize checks are committed to defeating President Obama, but their interests don’t stop there. Many are involved in businesses or ideological causes that have clear policy agendas with the federal government. Their huge influence on individual candidates demonstrates the potential for corruption inherent in the super PAC era.
The Baltimore Sun:
Moreover, the flood of unregulated money has been one of the biggest factors in the volatility of this year's race, when the contenders' fates seemed to rise or fall more or less in direct proportion to the number of super PAC-funded attack ads flung their way. One super PAC donor, Gingrich supporter Sheldon Adelson, recently said he would be willing to spend as much as $100 million to see his candidate elected. In the event that Mr. Gingrich does become president, you can be sure his ear will always be open to whatever Mr. Adelson has to say.
But aside from the risk that massive infusions of cash could corrupt the political process — it's been known to happen — it's now clear that the Citizens United decision changed the political landscape in ways the Supreme Court majority did not anticipate.
Kevin Spak reports:
Super PAC leaders have found a great use for all the unbridled cash pouring into their campaigns: paying themselves. The pro-Rick Santorum Red White and Blue Fund may be the most egregious offender; according to the LA Times, it paid $570,000 last month—a third of its total expenditures—to Global Intermediate, a direct mail firm created in December. Who owns Global Intermediate? Nick Ryan, the founder and leader of the Red White and Blue fund.
Becky Burkett, the head of the pro-Newt Gingrich Winning Our Future PAC, is doing pretty well for herself, too, taking home $206,000 in January alone. Her pay is decided by the PAC's "senior leadership"—of which Burkett is one of three members. Paul Begala has made $200,000 over eight months running Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that has raised only $4.4 million for Barack Obama. But he says that's "right in line" with his usual campaign salary. "We're accountable to our donors," he says, "who are very savvy people."
Alternet's
Steven Rosenfeld debunks six right-wing defenses of Citizens United:
The apologists are saying there’s nothing corrupt going on; it wasn’t caused by Citizen United anyway; it’s people not corporations writing the checks; it’s only free speech; it’s always been done; and it’s good for democracy.
Let’s unmask these silly assertions one by one. It might come as a shock to the right, but Americans who care about democracy can see through their charade.
1. Denying corruption.
Does anybody seriously think that any of these donors, who are some of the most accomplished businessmen in America, are just handing over millions as if they were giving a dollar to a homeless person and walking away? Or might they be investing in something, as, say, political venture capitalists?
Fred Hiatt:
In their debate Wednesday night, the remaining candidates seemed to be continuing their drift from reality — the reality of a center-right electorate they propose to woo and govern, and of the complexities of the problems they promise to solve. [...]
When CNN moderator John King raised the issue of contraception, you could sense that the candidates understood it was a trap — understood that, in the year 2012, most Americans do not understand why presidential hopefuls are debating the morality or legality of birth control.
Eugene Robinson:
We’ve heard this quickening drumbeat before. Last time, it led to the tragic invasion and occupation of Iraq. This time, if we let the drummers provoke us into war with Iran, the consequences will likely be far worse.
Rat-ta-tat-tat. Weapons of mass destruction. Boom-shakka-boom. A madman in charge. Thump-thump-thump. Mushroom clouds.
Tune out the anxiety-inducing percussion and think for a minute. Yes, there are good reasons to be concerned about the Iranian nuclear program. But it doesn’t follow that launching a military attack — or providing support for an attack by Israel — would necessarily be effective, let alone wise. The evidence suggests it would be neither.
On a final note, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi appeared on Stephen Colbert's show to talk about Citizens United and the auctioning of our elections: