Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jsmirman

(4,507 posts)
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:01 PM Nov 2012

It would be an ENORMOUS MISTAKE to back off on CITIZENS UNITED

I'm going to keep this simple, because this is a post where I hold these truths to be self-evident and so on.

Citizens United remains one of the most (if not the most) disastrous Supreme Court opinions of the last 100 years.

Do not be fooled by our ability to, at and near the top level, beat back the onrushing sludge of dark, dirty, nearly-endless pools of Citizens United-related money.

Without, at minimum, a DISCLOSE Act so that corporations can face the pain of their political decisions at both the checkout counter and in pushback from their investors, we are in deep trouble over the long-term.

Even better would be a Constitutional amendment that overturns the whole thing.

But some simple things anyone thinking that the Citizens United storm has passed need to get right with:

1) As Chris Hayes pointed out, the farther down ballot you get, the more effective Citizens United money was.

2) We benefited from some epically bad candidates on the Republican side, from the top spot down. Romney was a gift that kept on giving - from his perfectly fitting cowardice and excessive desperation for victory that caused him to unnecessarily careen so far to the right during the primaries, to his 47% video, to his toxic past as a job-killer, to his idiotic gaffes, to his poorly run campaign, and to his, again, excessive and desperate avoidance of putting forth any tangible plans and his similarly desperate reliance on ill-conceived campaign gambits like his China-Jeep advert. Heck, this guy even clashed with Fox News reporters who couldn't pin the tail on the slimy salesman.

2b) We benefited from once in a generation buffoons like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Roscoe Bartlett, and the list of approximately nine buffoons who, amazingly, don't understand how rape works.

3) Not all campaigns will be as well run structurally as the Obama campaign. I didn't always agree with every decision they made (whoever told the President to play cautious or slipped him an Ambien in Denver - not good), but structurally, from their insistence on committing maximum resources to reshaping the electorate through voter registration that began in their first primaries, to their excellent and well-organized targeting strategy of voters in the months leading up to Election Day and on Election Day - you cannot count on a Democratic campaign being run this well. And they also had a guy in the top spot with the discipline to always stay on message.

4) Just as we caught up over these last election cycles, the Republicans will run better campaigns. This is inevitable. We've laid out pretty clear blueprints, and enough people know the blueprint that the Republicans have the playbook needed to catch up. Don't get overconfident and miss this one.

5) They will figure out how to spend their money better. That one's in bold, because it's so important to the whole picture. This was the first time they had this much money, and it takes time to allocate that many resources effectively, when you're swimming in what seems like infinite resources. It wasn't easy for Brewster to figure out how to spend his Millions.

These people are misguided, but they aren't stupid. They are going to figure out a way to turn money into maximum advantage. That's what they do in the real world, and they will figure it out in terms of reaching, persuading, and bullying the electorate.

6) Small time donors stepped up, but the strain on us was enormous. I remain incensed at the Supreme Court for putting me through that. Why should I, and other people like me, have to face a David and Goliath situation daily, armed with a peashooter against overwhelming force? I plan on being in a better financial position by 2014, but in starting a business, I may even be more strapped by that election. And if I'm in the same position, I simply cannot contribute more than $5,000 each election cycle. I can't do it.

And thanks to the Supreme Court, this money is going to fund the mansions of ad execs and campaign consultants. And is gone from my pockets. I resent that this money had to go to political campaigns, when, as I pointed out earlier in the cycle, things like food banks and animal shelters could use every single dollar. And that is, by far, where I would prefer to put the moveable financial resources I can bring to bear.

Donor fatigue. Don't you think for a second it isn't coming for our side. We were asked to fight and we did fight an oncoming wall of cash. We're elated, but we're very tired, and we're weakened significantly.

7) States and voters shouldn't be subjected to the barrage of ridiculous advertisements and other nefarious communications Citizens United unleashes on swing state populations. Those populations are tired, too. One way for Citizens United money to win is to just make people tired of politics. It's a way to win by sheer weight. I don't know that the swing state voters can come through another election and not have many of them just decide that they are done with the whole darn thing. I caught only a residual effect, being close enough to Virginia to see what they were getting hit with, but television became almost literally stomach turning thanks to the meanness filled ad blocks that ran at every commercial break.

Citizens United is just bad for the country.

We got LUCKY to survive Citizens United for one election cycle. Do not mistake luck and a confluence of rare and most fortunate factors as any sort of prediction that Citizens United money won't be devastatingly effective in future elections.

That money is a blight on American life and on our politics. The state of campaign finance is a disaster, assisted greatly by a Congress that will not step up to pass campaign finance reform and a Supreme Court that remains in a bizarre state of anti-reality.

Actual citizens must push back against Citizens United. This is no time to stop. Just as with election reform, and making the long lines of Florida 2012 something that can never happen again, now is the time to step up our efforts and demands.

Citizens United is the same dangerous abomination it was before November 6th. It must be turned back if we are to save our democracy.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

jsmirman

(4,507 posts)
3. I think they really have it wrong, but that's a longer conversation
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:21 PM
Nov 2012

I think it would help to have them reverse their position, but - I don't know that they ever will and I don't know that they are a necessary component of the fight to have it overturned.

Bernie Sanders needs an army.

jsmirman

(4,507 posts)
5. Do not be fools!!! Do not let this sink
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:11 PM
Nov 2012

Right up there with election reform, this needs to be near the top of the board.

It's as important as anything!

jsmirman

(4,507 posts)
6. With some (but not too many - wake up!!!) apologies, I'm going to keep kicking this
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:51 PM
Nov 2012

Please, seriously, anyone else who agrees with this, take the time to kick this up the board.

This can't happen again.

The financial pressure on average people like myself and so many others is too much and is outrageous.

Ruby the Liberal

(26,219 posts)
7. Saw a quote this weekend where DISCLOSE is being reintroduced this term.
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:54 PM
Nov 2012

Looked for it on google, but not finding it again. If I can find out which Senator (Rep?) said it, I'll add a link.

Edit - never mind, I bookmarked it.

Chris Van Hollen - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/barack-obama-super-pacs_n_2101186.html?1352482378

jsmirman

(4,507 posts)
8. Thanks, Ruby. Anyone rejecting DISCLOSE is like, you must be kidding me
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:08 PM
Nov 2012

That is an act that simply must, as a minimum, be put into play.

We had the former head of the FEC come speak to us at my law school and that guy was like, "well, we will have the DISCLOSE ACT..."

Ay yi yi.

It's the minimum we were promised with this crappy decision!

It's like "The Supreme Court gave us this crappy decision and we didn't even get t-shirts"!!!

klyon

(1,697 posts)
11. we need public financing of election everybody gets the same amount
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:51 PM
Nov 2012

no telephone calls, no TV advertising, no name calling, no negative advertising just state your position on issues, and head to head debates that are real discussions of the issues
enough of all this big money
What could we do with the 9 billion dollars that was just spent?

jsmirman

(4,507 posts)
12. Not sure what would be legal within all that
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:25 AM
Nov 2012

but it certainly sounds preferable.

I also find the amount of money that is dumped into these races to be appalling.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It would be an ENORMOUS M...