Congress is the Problem

As some have said of the Supreme Court's January 21, 2010, decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is clearly the worst Supreme Court judgement since Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)! The decision gives corporations the right to contribute unlimited monies to election campaigns to elect candidates who support the corporate political agenda and defeat incumbents who do not.

Understandably, many have called on Congress to reverse the decision. Some want a constitutional amendment to limit corporate campaign contributions. Any singular constitutional amendment initiated in Congress would have to institute a full public campaign finance system. Unfortunately,with the sixty-vote requirement to override a filibuster, nothing will be done. Anyway, the problem is much more than a Supreme Court decision, as destructive as it is. Congress is a failed institution, and it certainly will not reform itself.

It should be said at this point that Democrats and especially the Obama administration have bought into the filibuster scare. It allows the Democrats a handy excuse for doing nothing. And for a would-be Republican, at least a conservative at heart, Obama is apparently satisfied with the status quo. Hey, what's so terrible about letting the Republicans filibuster? They could talk themselves into a constitutional convension.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) needs to be revisited. The decision recast congressional legislation and largely gutted the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Revenue Act--both enacted in 1971 and amended in 1974. As a consequence the 1976 Presidential election was not affected by either.

Also, how corporations initially acquired Fourteenth Amendment coverage, that corporations have the same rights as people, including First Amendment free speech rights, needs to be examined. In a preface by the Chief Justice before argument in the 1886, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., it was asserted that the entire Court was of the opinion that corporations in the case at hand had Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights--and here we are today still suffering from this absurd notion!

Citizens United merely highlights what the problem is and makes certain that it will become worse. Congress is more concerned about raising campaign funds from corporations than meeting the needs of the people the Framers intended them to represent. This is the basis for the movement to reform campaign contributions that has gotten nowhere over many years.
Congress controls the reform process; and as a consequence nothing will be done to change the status quo. In order to reform election finance, Congress has to be reformed. This can only be done through a constitutional convention.

Over the years there has been talk of a constitutional convention for revising the California State Constitution, and this has worried me because conservative Republicans were calling for it. At this writing, I am uncertain about safeguards for the State process. I have no fears for a national convention, because it only has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution. Any proposed change needs the approval of thirty-eight states. Another way of explaining the procedure, is that any twelve states can defeat any proposal. The constitutional convention format opens debate; however, the process can be lengthy and difficult.

Campaign fundraising has been a "charged" topic for decades. No significant legislation can pass in Congress without fundamental changes in how Congress conducts its business. The McCain-Feingold Bill, at best, is a token effort, which now has been nullified by the Citizens United decision. Yet, reformists continue to look to Congress to correct the institutional corruption that steadfastly defends the status quo. It's the old fox protecting the hen house predicament, in this case, corporate monies maintaining corporate control over legislation.

Every objective observer knows that massive amounts of corporate campaign financial contributions have thoroughly distracted Congress from meeting its constitutional responsibilities to serve the needs of the people. Fundraising preoccupations and addictions have focused Congressional attention on corporate needs.

In the 2008 election cycle campaign contributions for all candidates totaled $1.686 billion. Of that total Obama received $750 million! And much of the amount came as bundled corporate contributions. With the Citizens United decision, corporations can dispense with the funding charades and make direct contributions to candidates of their choice. With corporate largess Obama is also deeply beholden to the hand that feeds. Obama's continually diminishing expectations over health care reform appear to satisfy health care industry preferences in the quid pro quo context.

Each election cycle sees dramatic increases in campaign contributions and advertising costs. The two are inseparably connected. As a rule of thumb, the candidate with the most money wins elections! In short order, a winning presidental campaign will need to spend more than one billion dollars! With Citizens United the sky is the limit; or, as Obama himself has intimated, the flood gates are opened for the easy flow of unrestricted campaign dollars. Corporate candidates will have a cakewalk!

The fundraising obsession has created an institutional corruption that not only prevents change in the way government is conducted, it has disenfranchised the electorate from the political process and from democracy itself. It's not that people are disinterested in political issues or the democratic process. People are not apathetic! They choose to avoid participating in rigged legislative and electoral procedures and practices. Cynicism arises when Congress serves corporate interests to the exclusion of general population needs. Nevertheless, faith in democratic principles and electoral politics-- that is,in Congress--can be elevated through a constitutional convention or even a threatened one.

That money buys results in Congress is universally recognized. Money certainly buys access! And access creates influence. What is most alarming is that the corruption is not hidden; it's all conducted in plain sight. It is common knowledge that Joseph Lieberman and Max Baucus receive millions of campaign dollars from the very industries that the committees they chair propose relevant legislation. No wonder confidence in Congress is lacking among the electorate and that cynicism prevails across the political spectrum. It's the cynicism that leads to voter disengagement. And then this leads to a situation where Congress, with impunity, acts only in the corporate interest.

For all the promises Obama made about changing the way Washington governs, he no longer speaks of change. His broken promises, of which there are now many, have given strength to Republicans who seek to destroy his presidency. Obama could have come out of the gates in a full-gallop toward promised changes. Instead he opted for bipartisan politics. Had he worked on his initial political capital, he could have possibly accomplished monumental change. He chose timidity and its preference for compromise.

With the vacuum in Congress and the White House, with two branches of government supine in the face of an invigorated radical Republican opposition, the reactionary and ideological Supreme Court majority has made their second destructive move, the first was Bush v. Gore (2000), to roll back democracy in the U.S.A. I am referring again to the raw, unbridled activism exhibited in the recent Citizens United decision.

There is no need to challenge that unfortunate decision directly through a constitutional amendment. Such an effort would not succeed in Congress anyway! I believe a two-thirds vote is required. As long as thirty-four Republicans stick together, a proposed constitutional amendment will not pass. Without doubt, Republicans are monolithic and indivisible, especially in a High Court decision that stands to benefit Republicans rather significantly. So, as I read the situation, the time is right for a constitutional convention movement to bring back a democratic Congress.

State of the Union Speech and all that!

The Republican Party's rebuttal to President Obama's State of the Union Address was a theatrical tour de force that rivalled the orchestrated event in the House of Representatives just moments before. The massive volume and lengthy duration of canned applause in both venues were vaguely reminisscent of the recorded 1930's speeches at the Reichstag that we have all heard replayed over the years.


Michael Moore's pre-speech advice to President Obama was to "come-clean", admit mistates and change policies and orientation. Sadly, Obama praised his first year accomplishments. Obviously, politicians are unlikely to seriously and objectively critique ill-advised undertakings. President Obama's State of the Union Address, as those of several presidents in recent decades, had in showmanship what it lacked in subtance. Interestingly, Obama postponed a White House reception for the Dali Lama until after the speech, in deference to China's objections to the provocative undertaking.

The address was delivered on January 27, 2010. I started to write about the speech on January 31, but put it aside when I became distracted by other pursuits. Now, in mid-September 2010, I am picking up where I left off. No student of political affairs takes the State of the Union Address seriously. For the approximately 535 members of Congresin attendance, it is a charde and spoof, a joke on the American people. When I listened to the address, the notion of a dog-and-pony show came to mind. I started to hum the music of my grammar school graduation. I imagined a gala-event at the Met. It is a rare event when all the suspects of current crimes against humanity are viewed en mass, when the Supreme Court shows itself as united and civil, Senators and Representatives act as baffons, while standing at the podium is the Caesar that Gaius Julius could only imagine. Obama is a spellbinder and could hold his own with the smoothish huckster! And his address is mostly wishful thinking and spin. With that said, I will assume that Barack Obama believes what he says. However, he contradicts himself on most every stated position. On controversial issues he splits the differences between the factions and supports watered down compromises. He has a well-earned reputation as a "flip-flopper". To the crux of the matter, I do not believe him. And noone believes he earned the Nobel Peace Prize, as I have stated in earlier writings. He should have declined until such time as he might rightfully claim it. It is extremely important to note that although Obama donated the prize money to various organizations, peace groups were not included! I suggest to the man of peace, that donating to peace groups with Nobel Peace Prize money would have been respectful and pragmatic! He had placed himself in an untenable situation in accepting the award, and donating to peace organizations would generate conflict among Republicans! And Obama avoids conflict at any cost
Shortly into the address Obama makes this surprising assessment: "...that if we did not act (economic collapse), we might face a second depression (the first I assume was that of the 1930s). So we acted--immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed." He then explains that the "devastation remains"; and he expounds on the many persistant economic problems that are still with us

According to Obama, the American people share common aspirations. And with that, "They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote me to say, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged." Obama's rhetoric certainly draws on the gospel of the power of positive thinking. But, do these resilient people have a place to live, and can they afford the food to feed themselves? He seems to be talking about a suburban oasis of prosperity and normalcy. How many inner-city children play Little League baseball? I believe the high school drop-out rate is increasing. The number of underemployed, those that have given up looking for employment and the unemployed still looking for work, is far higher than Obama is willing to admit.

To justify his Wall Street bailout, "...when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular--I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost." This is out of the Alice In Wonderland rabbit hole! Need I tell Oama that eleven million homes are under foreclosure proceedings, and the number is increasing everyday, that banks and other businesses are closing at a murderous rate? And the mega-banks that created the collapse are currently making record profits and continuing to provide multi-million-dollar bonuses--while sitting on their reserves. They are not lending! And the collapse-crafters fill key economic postions in the Obama administration!

Obama praises his stimulus bill: "The plan that made all this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act...also known as the stimulus bill. Economists on the left and right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster." There is more to the story--the failure of nerve. In dollar amount, Obama reduced the stimulus to a mere gester. The money allocated should have been two or three times what he finally settled on. There seems to be a majority opinion among non-ideologue economists that the stimulus package was too small to make significant improvements, that Obama would be admitting failure in going back to Congress for a second go-round. Such a request would be dead-on-arrival in Congress, anyway.

It is difficult to nail Obama on his outlandish optimism because he usually follows with qualifications: "But, I realize that for every success story, there are other stores...."

Obama proposes things that he knows will die in the Senate, won't even get out of committee. "...and that's why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight." Again, "So tonight, I'm proposing that we take the $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat." Obviously, even if passed, the gester is too little-too late! Hundreds of small banks and countless businesses have already gone away! What kind of jobs will be created--Burger King and Jack In The Box minimum wage jobs?

I sense cynicism and detachment in Obama's address. His oratory is so perfect that it creates a felling of skepticism. I sense an absence of warmth and sincerity. There is an element of disbelief. For example, "...we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools...Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success...." He refers to his Race-To-The-Top program and teachers elvauated by student test scores. Inner-city and rural schools will be further disadvantaged by an increasing unlevel playing field. The notion that school districts compete against each other for federal funding is contrary to the egalitarian premise of public eduation. Sadly, capitalists like to compete. And capitalists are great fanciers of charter schools, and they collect substantial amounts of federal money to run them. But, I digress.