Vermont Legislature Takes on 'Citizens United'

Vermont became the third state in the nation to pass resolutions allowing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the highly controversial Supreme Court decision that allowed unhindered money into our political elections.

By 92-40 vote in the Vermont House of Representatives - 5 Republicans backed the measure despite a filibuster attempt by a Republican State Rep - and an unquestionably wide margin in the Senate of 26-3, Vermont joined Hawaii and New Mexico as the only states to approve resolutions. However, over 100 cities and in more than 20 other state legislatures resolutions have been introduced to approve a constitutinal amendment to overturn Citizens United.

The resolution acknowledges government oversight to regulate the amount of money coporations can spend on elections, as well as to recognize that "corporations are not persons," what many analysts deem to be the logical conclusion to the Supreme Court's decision.

As they say, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

Will Obama End Super PACs If Re-Elected?

Bill Burton, former White House Press Secretary, and current head of Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC, discusses the notion that even if a super PAC helps President Obama win re-election, the President will not work to achieve campaign finance reform to rid the political system of inhindered money in politics.

http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/bill-burton-defends-president-obama-stance-on-super-pac-funding-for-the-2012-campaign

Sucker PAC'ed

President Obama today reversed his long-standing position on super PACs and his supporters donating to them. For a long time Obama has spoken of the dangers of the super PACs and the potential threat they pose to our elections and to democracy as a whole. Since the Citizens United decision back in January 2010, PACs have been able to raise unlimited amounts of money to spend in political campaigns without having to disclose their contributors, nor do the politicians affiliated with these PACs have to admit to any collaboration with them. These PACs have dwarfed the standard PACs of the past, and hence have now become "super" PACs simply based on the financial muscle they can now flex in influencing voters through attack ads. Some have argued that this wouldn't happen, but it's pretty clear the impact super PACs are going to have on the 2012 Presidential election already as evidenced by the brutal Republican primary currently taking place.

Now that Obama has changed his stance on the issue, how will this fair for his campaign and the democratic base. Over at The Huffington Post, Sam Stein writes an intuitive article on the potential impacts it could have on the left and Obama's supporters in general. And I have to agree mostly with what he is saying here. It does not seem likely that the base will abandon the President at all (especially given the choice of potential candidates coming out of the right). Sure, they're going to be angry with the President for a little while, but they will likely see this as consolation for the very nature the Citizens United decision has cast over the country. Just look at what the Koch brothers announced at a dinner this past weekend. The thing is, this presidential election is going to be costly and it's going to be downright ugly. The republicans have already shown their hand. They're attacking one another maliciously. Once the dust settles there, and all these super PACs focus their attention on the left, it's going to be worse. I for one will be happy the President has some allies in his corner to help. I don't like it, certainly, but he can't bring a knife to a gun fight.

But here is what I would hope the President does. He needs to continue to denounce super PACs and the Citizens United decision in general. He needs to reestablish his push for campaign finance reform, even though now it may seem hypocritical and he may have a hard time selling the public in general. But I think if he doubles-down on campaign finance reform he can at least appease the dissatisfied voters that are going to pop up because of this decision. And it's not really being hypocritical. Just because he wants to amend the rules of the game he's playing, doesn't mean he can't play by the rules already established. Mitt Romney made such a case for his 13.9% effective tax rate. After receiving initial criticism for for how little Romney actually pays in taxes, and that he has money in offshore tax havens, he argued not to begrudge him, he's just using the rule of law. And it's true. But Romney has made no mention that he wants to balance the disparities of the tax code (his tax plan will actually make it worse). President Obama still has the chance to do this, to make this argument against his opponents trying to draw him as hypocritical for this decision. Play the game by the rules. If you see a better way for the game to be played, make your voice heard and the people will follow.

Huntsman Lands Big Endorsement

Today, Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman received a major boost to his campaign just five days before the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday night. The Boston Globe, Massachusetts’ most influential newspaper, endorsed the former Utah Governor as their pick for the Republican nominee for 2012. This is big news for the Huntsman campaign, which has seen anemic support so far throughout the Republican race and it may also come as a surprise to some since Mitt Romney, current frontrunner for the nomination, was once the paper’s state governor. It may come as a surprise to everyone, except Romney himself. The Globe in the 2008 campaign endorsed Sen. John McCain, who eventually won the nomination. With the primary so close, it’s difficult to say if this endorsement is too little, too late for the Huntsman campaign, or if it will provide a flurry of media attention and support in the waning days before the primary, similar to former Sen. Rick Santorum before the Iowa caucus Tuesday night. With the top-tier of candidates so tight and many republicans still undecided, this endorsement could be just what Huntsman needs to finally make a move towards the top.

Republican voters seem, at least before Romney’s narrow Iowa caucus victory earlier this week, reluctant to pick and stay with a candidate. The field has seen Michelle Bachmann (dropped out of the race after finishing last in Iowa), Herman Cain (dropped out), Rick Perry (back in Texas to reassess his campaign after a 5^th place Iowa finish), and Newt Gingrich all at one time taking the top spot in polling. Ron Paul has seen steadily increasing numbers and has the most ardent supporters. Paul feels so strongly about the loyalty of his base he has not yet ruled out running as a Third-Party candidate in the general election. And there’s Huntsman, who has run a steady campaign in New Hampshire (he did not participate in the Iowa caucuses), but has seen very little support come his way. The Globe’s endorsement may help change all that. Romney leads comfortably in New Hampshire, but a strong surge from Huntsman, possibly moving him into 2^nd or 3^rd in the Republican race could upend the field and bring many of these candidates back down to earth. Just look at the end to the Globe piece:

                “But even if Romney emerges as the nominee, it matters how he gets there. Already, the religious Right, represented by Rick Santorum, and Tea Party activists, represented by Ron Paul, have pushed Romney in unwanted directions. In New Hampshire, Republican and independent voters have a chance, through Huntsman, to show [Romney] a sturdier model. Jon Huntsman would be a better president. But if he fails, he could still make Romney a better candidate.”

Romney is, in view of many analysts, a moderate pandering to the far Right in order to secure the nomination, and that should he win the presidency, he’ll be much less conservative than the party wants (probably the reason voters are reluctant to pick him and constantly looking elsewhere for a viable conservative they can support). And as the Globe points out, “Huntsman has been bold” when it comes to his beliefs and values, and contrary to Romney’s denunciation of all-things-Obama, his unsubstantive vision of repeal, repeal, repeal while speaking little of what he would replace it with, Huntsman has consistently laid out his goals for the future.

A link from Huntsman's campaign website provides a detailed overview of some of Huntsman’s signature goals if elected president. But there are a few items that I have been watching with Huntsman for several months now.

Huntsman opposes the notion that ‘corporations are people’ and the controversial decision of the Supreme Court in early 2010 in the Citizens United case. The entire Republican field has endorsed the decision of the court and none find it controversial nor view it as a threat to our democracy. It is, and Huntsman is the only candidate who rightfully believes so. Mitt Romney on the other hand was against the idea of granting “personhood” to corporations until, or course, he needed to raise cash for his campaign and very publically proclaimed to a worried gathering of supporters when questioned on the decision, “Corporations are people, my friend,” then dismissively went on to another topic.

Jon Huntsman refuses to accept that global warming is a natural trend and wants to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our emissions, and strongly supports turning our economy off foreign oil, as well as fossil fuels all-together, and move the country towards a green economy so that we can compete with the $5 Trillion alternative fuel industry emerging in China, India, and the rest of the world.

And finally, Governor Huntsman has been advocating the break-up of “Too Big to Fail” banks, recognizing their involvement, deceit, negligence, and criminal activity that lead to the housing crash and ultimately the Great Recession. Rightfully, Mr. Huntsman has bemoaned the Obama Administration and Congress for failing to address and change the systemic issues of the financial services industry with the Dodd-Frank Act that was passed into law in 2011. He believes lawmakers failed to pass meaningful reform.

I do not necessarily agree with Mr. Huntsman on everything. I do not like that he is basing his plans for entitlement reform on Paul Ryan’s deficit reduction plan, which essentially ends Social Security as we know it. Huntsman seems willing to expand domestic oil production, which I think could pave the way for approval of the Keystone oil pipeline, the benefits of which are considered by many wildly over exaggerated, and threatens vulnerable environmental areas throughout the country. But what I do not want to happen is come November, I’m casting my vote to re-elect President Obama simply because the guy standing at the other podium is so dangerous to human rights, so neoconservative in their views on tax cuts and military spending, so disastrously unqualified, that I have no choice. If Jon Huntsman wins the GOP nomination, he will also force President Obama to become a better candidate.

New York City Council Rules Against Citizens United

The New York City Council today voted against corporate personhood and the Citizens United decision set down by the Supreme Court in January of 2010. Expressing concern that granting corporations the same rights as individuals, the ruling will create an imbalance in the election of lawmakers and city officials by allowing unfettered and unchecked contributions into campaigns threatening our very democracy. There is a growing movement across the country to pass a Constitutional amendment to disavow the notion that corporations are people and thus not granted the same rights as individuals. Seven other city councils across the country have passed similar measures, Los Angeles being the most notable prior to today, and four amendments were introduced in Congress in 2011 for just such a thing. For an amendment to be ratified, both houses of Congress must pass the law with two-thirds vote.

Religious Freedom Is What's At Stake

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Mounting opposition to the proposed Muslim cultural center has thrust the building into the limelight of an already hostile electoral season. Those opposed to the cultural center, more often referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque," have cycled through a cadre of reasoning to be against construction of the center. The arguments have been made that the building will be a "terrorist training center;" others have drawn parallels of the cultural center's maiden name, "Cordoba House," to the takeover of a church in Spain in the 7th Century and its symbolism of hostile Islamic colonialism. And then there is the sensitivity argument, that for Muslims to build a mosque so near the worst terrorist attack on American soil is insincere to those who lost family members, friends, and loved ones. The focus has now shifted towards the funding of the cultural center, in whether the men and women funding it are terrorist sympathizers, or have dubious ties to any extremist group. Many proposing these reasons not to build the cultural center like to shy away from the "religious freedom" argument, the constitutional right provided by the First Amendment. But truly that is what this argument boils down to, as none of these other arguments stand up to any mindful scrutiny.

The argument over the cultural center's initial name has basically already been resolved. (I'll take this moment to say that I will not utter the continuance of "Ground Zero Mosque" from here on out because the term itself is laced with fear-mongering and jingoism. St. Paul's Chapel is not so uncharacteristically named the "Ground Zero Church." The proposed building is a place for all New Yorkers, and indeed for all people to visit. The inclusion of a prayer space on the top two floors should not advocate the use of the aforementioned name.) Initially, the cultural center was to be called "Cordoba House." But after the repetition of the origin of that name, a story meant only to ingrain fear into the minds of the population, the builders of the cultural center changed the name to Park51. I wonder if Adidas is next on Newt Gingrich's hit list?

Once the builders were pressured into altering the name, the arguments continued to mount against the cultural center. Sensitivity became a staunch bulwark against allowing the project to move forward, and is probably the biggest reason that most New Yorkers are against the building of the cultural center. The argument is simply: extremist Muslims attacked us so other Muslims should be sensitive to Americans' grief and not build near ground zero. There are just oh so many things wrong with this argument.

First, it is a fallacy to parallel the extremists, the terrorists, who attacked us on 9/11 with the Islamic religion as a whole. It is well known that all religions have their extremists: Hitler, McVeigh, Cruise; 19 men who hijacked 4 planes. If you want to talk insensitivity, then please do not miss the insensitivity of those Americans who cast blame on all Muslims for 9/11. "We fear what we do not understand." A common phrase uttered in so many ways, yet poignant as always even in this debate. Muslims were killed too that day; peaceful Americans who lived and worked beside the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. who also died in those towers.

Secondly, expounding on the above, do those who take their beliefs to the extremist level, or those who distort their beliefs to fit their own selfish worldview mirror an entire population? Are all Germans, Nazis? Hardly. Would we classify a Catholic man or woman we met on the street a pedophile? A certainly hope not. Have Americans been benevolently sensitive to Native Americans for the land we took from them by force? As our current sitting President pushed for Health Care Reform earlier this year, Rush Limbaugh compared the legislation to black reparations. In accordance with the logic that all Muslims must be "sensitive" to the placement of their cultural center then yes, white Americans must always be overly sensitive to the most inconsequential needs of black Americans, something I'm sure Mr. Limbaugh would wholeheartedly disagree with. Even this year, as the Catholic Church faced new swirling allegations of child molestation, Pope Benedict XVI barely raised a concern over the reports of a priest in Ireland found guilty of molestation and even his own involvement, as then a Cardinal of the church, in protecting a priest who molested over 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin in the 1970s. The Pope, and the Vatican itself, tried to spin the story into an attack on Catholicism, a "victimizer is the victim" rebuttal, instead of apologizing and making a strong push for increased punishments of the guilty. But clearly, since it is a christian institution, especially in this country and more especially from constituents on the political right, the same standards do not apply to a church, or a synagogue, as they would to a mosque.

Third, how far exactly would building a mosque in New York from Ground Zero no longer be "insensitive" to Americans, or Christians, or whoever? There is a Mosque currently in the Pentagon, just 80 feet from where that hijacked plane crashed, as well as an actual mosque just 4 blocks from Ground Zero.

While simultaneously questioning the sensitivity of Muslims to want to build a cultural center, that just so happens to contain a mosque, near ground zero, the opposition slid into the debate the question of who exactly was funding the mosque. If terrorists were found to be supplying the funds for the construction then surely it would seem the cultural center would be a breeding ground for extremists right under our own noses, right on the very soil of liberty for which we all stand. The argument, however, devolved quickly into a "guilt by association" game of finger-pointing and incredulity. But, as Jon Stewart pointed out, this is a dangerous game. (Seriously, watch this whole clip if you haven't seen it.) And now, Fox5 news in New York is running a story about a man, one of the projects funders, and a donation he made to what he thought was a charity, but turned out to be linked to Hamas, a known cell of extremists.

My mother was once duped into donating money to an unknown man or woman claiming to be a missionary stranded and in strife in some war-torn African nation. Turns out, the person was not displaced and through the naivety of my mother (she's new to the Internet), the person was able to get her social security number and ultimately her bank account information, extorting money from her. Luckily no long term damage was done, and my mom secured her accounts without loss. The point being, naivety or out-right trickery and deception by one party, does not apply guilt to the other. Because this person claimed to be a christian, should my mom apply mistrust to all Christians forever more? No. And what of those who make donations, or contributions to the Catholic Church? (Sorry Catholics. I do not mean to pick on you. I'm only drawing similarities to the church in order to shed light on the hypocrisy of opposing the cultural center.) If the man who made a contribution to what he thought was a Muslim charity, but in actuality was linked to terrorists is then labeled a terrorist, any contributor to the Catholic church is then linked to pedophilia, a pedophile themselves, or at least sympathetic to pedophiles. None of which is true, and the same over-reaching should not be applied to the cultural center. And should this man be found guilty of knowingly aiding a terrorist group, I presume the group trying to build this mosque would immediately sever ties with him and those associated with him, what the Catholic Church failed to do with the pedophile priest in Wisconsin.

Without any of these arguments, the controversy over the proposed cultural center near ground zero boils down to one of our most basic rights of freedom and liberty in this country. Even with any of these arguments, our First Amendment right to freedom of religion should be at the base of any argument. This debate is not about sensitivity, nor the name of the building, nor even the matter of who is funding it (I'd love to see an Op-Ed somewhere drawing the parallels of funding political campaigns via the Citizens United v. FEC case to funding this cultural center; alas, I have not the time right now to launch into it.). This debate is about upholding the pinnacle that is this country and maintaining the very values for which people of all faiths, of all ethnicities, of all races and colors have sought to assimilate, stewing in the broth of liberty.