The corrupting influence of Citizens United v. FEC

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

As if corporations and their lobbyists do not already exert undue influence over elected officials, things are about to get a lot worse as a result of the conservative activist U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC giving corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections (unlike you and I who are limited to maximum contribution limits). Corporations and their lobbyists are already lining up to take advantage of the Court's radical departure from a century of precedent. Businesses organizing to fund political candidates:

Taking advantage of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, some Arizona business interests are lining up to find way to directly influence elections.

Filings with the Secretary of State's Office show that the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry has formed a new entity to collect corporate funds and use them to support candidates of its choosing. So has the Arizona Home Builders Association, Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife and several individual companies.

* * *

State lawmakers reacted [to Citizens United v. FEC] by approving a framework that specifically permits such donations. But it requires the business and labor interests to publicly set up the campaign committees through which they intend to funnel their cash.

It still leaves in place existing prohibitions against either unions or corporations giving money directly to candidates. Instead, these special interests have to make their case to the public separately — and not in coordination with any candidate.

But the law mandates that TV commercials, newspaper advertising, mailers and other campaign materials disclose who is paying for it.

Glenn Hamer, president of the state chamber, said he sees the new group as a way of building a coalition of interests to push for common goals.

* * *

Hamer said the funds raised — there is no money in the account now — would be used to elect candidates who support [their] goals and to defeat those who oppose them.

But the chamber isn't the only group looking at the new law as a way to shape the outcome of elections. The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona also has created its own committee to make independent expenditures on candidate races.

But Connie Wilhelm, the organization's president, said it remains to be seen exactly how active this new committee will be.

One issue is related to the disclosure: Any commercials or other materials would have to declare that the money comes from home builders. And she conceded that putting that designation on advertising won't always get a favorable response.

"It's not smart strategy to try to help somebody and then your name, by being on the piece, hurts them,'' Wilhelm said. "You have to be very careful.''

Wilhelm said her organization is going to be careful in wading into this new area of trying to influence elections. She said the law and all its requirements for reporting and disclosure are new and untested, with potential pitfalls for business interests that do not follow them to the letter.

In a related matter…

The Arizona Capitol Times reports that McCain fundraising tops $15 million:

U.S. Sen. John McCain has spared no expense in his primary battle against J.D. Hayworth, spending more than $15 million in his bid to hold off the former congressman’s challenge from the right.

According to a quarterly report filed with the Federal Elections Committee, McCain has spent about 10 times more than Hayworth and far more than all other candidates combined. He reported spending about $15.6 million, compared to about $1.5 million for Hayworth.

The U.S. Senate has been reduced to a plutocratic millionaire's boys and girls club. The corrupting influence of money on politics is a malignant cancer spreading to other levels of government as well. Meg Whitman, GOP hopeful for governor in California, spent an astronomical $71 million just in the GOP primary.

Voters frequently complain that their elected representatives do not represent their values and views. This is because access to higher public office is now limited to members of the elite plutocracy as a result of the astronomical cost of running for office. This freezes average American citizens out of the electoral process.

Which is exactly the way the elite plutocrats want it.