Fight Back Against Citizens United

On the second anniversary of Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people, there’s bad news and good news.

The bad news: we’re seeing the full impact of the ruling, with the creation of PACs --- political action committees -- with innocuous Mom and apple pie-sounding names, like Make Us Great Again and Winning Our Future, funded by unlimited anonymous corporate contributions.

The good news is that the ruling has galvanized a grassroots backlash: if you’re mad as hell and want to join the fight to rid our democracy of toxic big money, there’s an explosion of grassroots opposition for you to plug into today, or whenever you’re ready.

First, a little history. Corporate political contributions have been stirring outrage for more than 100 years, since they helped elect Teddy Roosevelt in 1904. Once elected, the savvy Roosevelt got in front of a movement to outlaw those contributions, resulting in passage of the Tillman Act.

But the corporations didn’t just slink away in defeat; they developed ever more creative ways to skirt the law and influence elections.

In Citizens United, eight Supreme Court justices ruled in 2010 that while corporations couldn’t contribute to individual candidates they could give to political action committees that do not, supposedly, have formal ties to a particular candidate.

In their ruling, the justices took a flawed, too narrow view of the way in which money corrupts politics. First, they said that since the PACs aren’t linked to individual candidates, the contributions couldn’t be used to bribe the candidates, or extract a quid pro quo.

The court ignored the well-known fact that the monster PACs do establish informal but strong ties to individual candidates.

In addition, the court misstates the more insidious way massive corporate cash corrupts our government. As Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig points out, large corporate contributions ensure that only those candidates, regardless of party, who can collect those contributions, and espouse a corporate-friendly political agenda, stand any chance.

This creates a political system that thwarts goals of left and right.

If we don’t reverse Citizens United and confront corporate power, we can expect more corporate bailouts with no questions asked, and fewer consumer, environmental, employee and investor protections. We can expect more tax breaks for the 1 percent and more austerity for the 99 percent.

At WheresOurMoney, my colleague Harvey Rosenfield has proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United that is easily understood and will withstand any legal challenge. You can read more about it here. There’s a great video with background and ideas about fighting Citizens United here.

You can find groups taking a variety of actions against Citizens United across the country here and here.

 

 

 

 

Action / Citizens United / Martin Column - 01/21/2012

D.C. Disconnect: Beltway Media Edition

The historic first ever Federal Reserve press conference delivered even less than the little that was expected.

That was in part because Fed chair Bernanke is good at making economic policy boring and opaque.

After all, that is his job.

But the reporters who cover the Fed have no such excuse.

At the press conference, they shared none of the outrage that continues to be expressed by the rabble outside Washington who are upset by the Fed’s bailout of big banks, and who fought to make the agency more transparent.

The whole thing had the flavor of a rote exercise, featuring people who appeared to be sleepwalking rather than covering the secretive agency that handed out trillions to the financial industry with no questions asked.

There was no skepticism, no appearance that the reporters had done their homework to challenge the Fed’s behavior in boosting banks while abandoning working people. There was none of the excitement that reporters worked up for the non-story of Obama’s birth certificate.

The press conference confirmed what we already knew: federal authorities, including Bernanke have abandoned the unemployed. They’ve moved on. Although employment is one of two of Bernanke’s mandates, he insists his hands are tied.

The reporters participating in this historic occasion treated the bailout as old news. Somehow they managed to miss that every time the Fed provides information about its actions in the bailout, it raises more questions than it answers.

Thankfully, not everybody in Washington shares this view. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats, has been doing his best to dog the Fed.

A day before Bernanke held his press conference; Sanders released the results of a study he ordered from the Congressional Research Service of the Fed’s secret lending program. That study showed how the big banks gamed the bailout, profiting from investing the low interest loans the Fed gave them rather than loaning the money to businesses to get the economy going.

Sanders put out a press release with a catchy headline –  “Banks Play Shell Game With Taxpayer Dollars.” This wasn’t enough to rouse the reporters who cover the Fed; nobody could be bothered to ask Bernanke about it as his press conference. According to the research service, the banks pocketed interest rates 12 percent greater than the low-interest emergency loans the Fed was giving them. The purpose of this emergency loan program had nothing to do with enriching bankers; it was justified only because we were told it was the only thing that would get the economy going.

It’s worth remembering that Bernanke and the Fed fought a losing battle against the release of any details about its secret lending program. You would have thought the reporters would have welcomed the opportunity to subject Bernanke’s decision-making to public scrutiny.

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Reserve / Martin Column / Outrage - 04/28/2011

BIPARTISANSHIP FOR BIG BANKS

With 2 weeks to go to the midterm elections, President Obama and the Republicans have found an issue they can agree on: if they just do nothing, the foreclosure scandal will go away.

They’re betting that the use of robo-signers to process foreclosure documents without actually reading them will just amount to a pile of sloppy paperwork.

They’re betting that blaming borrowers will trump public outrage over banks holding themselves above the rule of law that states they have to prove that they own a mortgage note before they can foreclose.

You can understand the Republicans’ position; they argue that the government has no responsibility and is only capable of making any problem worse.

President Obama’s approach can’t be much of a surprise either, after leaving his financial policy in the hands of Wall Street apologists, fighting the most robust financial reform, providing a failed foreclosure relief program and not raising a finger to help when banks opposed his own proposal and not using his bully pulpit to push it. The president, despite his occasional bursts of rhetoric, has never assumed the role of tough regulator and reformer he promised on the campaign trail, preferring to act as the big bank’s collaborator-in-chief.

The president’s name may not be on the ballot November 2. But many of the Democrats who are facing the voters advocate a more robust response: a foreclosure moratorium while the very real legal issues are sorted out.

The Obama administration has taken to sending signals to the voters, hoping that might allay their worries. The feds announced the formation of that entity designed to show concern while guaranteeing that no action will be taken for the foreseeable future: a task force.

A number of banks had started their own voluntary moratoriums on some foreclosures. But two of those banks, Ally and Bank of America, have already canceled them. Meanwhile all 50 state attorney generals have announced their own investigations into the mess.

Despite the efforts of bank apologists to minimize it, the foreclosure debacle continues to shape up as a series of nasty legal battles, with a dramatic, unsettling impact on the housing market.

Opponents of a foreclosure moratorium portray it as a way of giving homes to people who haven’t been making their mortgage payments. But that’s a phony argument. A moratorium will not end up causing anybody who hasn’t been paying their mortgage to own a house they didn’t pay for.

As far as borrowers living in their houses for free, let’s be clear: that’s happening now, and it’s not the fault of any moratorium. It’s happening as a result of the banks’ own chaotic approach to foreclosure, often not wanting to take possession of property that has lost its value or not hiring enough staff to manage the properties properly.

This is the terrible irony about the banks’ fear-mongering. While they’re always predicting awful consequences to any action that limits their own power, the banks create the consequences all by themselves, or with the help of their willing collaborators.

Bank of America (BoA) / Foreclosures / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 10/20/2010

Around the Web: Can WAMU be the Blue Cross of Financial Reform?

During the debate over health care reform, the public was galvanized by the disclosure of  outrageous insurance rate increases by Blue Cross.

It was that public outrage that finally got the healthcare legislation passed over Republican opposition.

Now Senate backers of  a strong overhaul of the financial system hope that televised hearings on the details of the reckless lending, incompetent management and multiple regulatory failures that sank the nation’s largest savings and loan will fuel support for financial reform in the face of relentless opposition from Wall Street.

The hearings got underway Tuesday in the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, headed by Sen. Carl Levin,D-Michigan.

In strong contrast to hearings  held recently by the congressionally appointed committee to investigate the financial crisis, Levin’s opening hearing was tough, pointed and thorough. Levin said he intended for the hearings to serve as a case study for what happened at financial institutions during the meltdown. He compared WAMU’s selling and packaging of  high-risk option ARM and no-doc loans to dumping “pollutants into a river.”

Calling Washington Mutual’s former CEO Kerry Killinger “a forgotten villain of the financial crisis", Fortune’s Colin Barr sets the stage here. Business Week recounts the testimony here. CSPAN carried the hearings live they can be viewed here.

The star witnesses from WAMU were Killinger and former Chief Operating Officer Stephen Rotella. Killinger testified that WAMU was unfairly targeted by regulators because it not “too clubby to fail” as were larger financial institutions. Killinger insisted WAMU could have worked its way out of the crisis if regulators hadn’t eventually shut it down.

On Friday, we’ll hear from the regulators, who were well aware of WAMU’s questionable lending and securitization but continued to find that the savings and loan was financially sound.

Around the Web / Martin Column / Outrage - 04/13/2010