Welcome to the Corporate States of America?

Sorry for the long absence from writing; I’ve had too much work so far this semester, and as always, I care about the quality of these posts.  I do not just randomly throw whatever up here; I take time to research these posts.  As a result, yes, I am starting to write this on a Saturday night; this issue is too important to not write about.  Remember the Citizens United ruling?  We’re now seeing its full effects, and they are disturbing.  Several weeks ago, Target was called out for donating to a Minnesota candidate’s campaign based on his economic platform; this same candidate, it turns out, is against gay marriage.  Though the grassroots campaign against Target was successful, it turns out we were barely scratching the surface with the issue of corporate funding of campaigns.

Much larger than Target’s six-figure donation to MN Forward is the $10 million that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent this past week trying to elect Republicans in recent weeks.  Now, the idea of the Chamber funding political attack ads is nothing new, and is even, albeit tacitly, accepted in American politics.  I don’t think special interest groups on either side of the political spectrum should be involved in politics, but that’s another post for another day.  What is really getting at me is the question of whether the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending foreign money on campaign ads, which is a violation of Federal law.

“Trust Us?”  Umm, how about not…

Politico’s Ben Smith says that a Chamber spokesman told him that they “have a system in place for ensuring…No foreign money is used to fund political activities”.  This explanation seems to be good enough for the New York Times and the Washington Post, but I’m not convinced.  You see, I’ve always learned/been told that money is fungible, as in it doesn’t matter if it comes from Company X or Company Y, and Company Y just happens to be based overseas; it’s all the same money.  An alarming example of this comes from the Chamber itself: according to ABC News, the Chamber’s Director of Media Relations himself said that “money from the AmChams and foreign corporations go to the general fund”.  Once there, he goes on to say that it goes into a separate international section, but how can we be so sure?

I want hard proof before I believe them; since the allegations seem to at least have some basis in truth, they need to be put to rest.  The Chamber needs to come completely clean: tell the nation what percentage of its budget goes toward political advertising, what percentage comes from dues versus other contributions, and disclose the donors, at least at the corporate level.  Political campaigns already have to do this; why shouldn’t the other organizations that run ads for or against a given candidate?  After all, they fulfill much the same functions, PACs and similar organizations are sort of a shadow campaign if you will.

This goes for every non-campaign organization that exists to influence an election, including the new “super PACs” that are popping up everywhere.  Granted, according to the Campaign Law Center the super PACs have to disclose their donors eventually, but “most have not done so yet because they are so new”.  While thinking about this, I had an idea for a way to combat the way these groups pop up, spend millions of dollars in political advertising, then go quiet: institute a waiting-period when a group can only raise money and get set up, say 30 days.  After that 30 days is up, the organization has to file a disclosure of its donors, where it intends to spend the money, etc.  As soon as that happens, the organization is free to do what it wants within existing regulations.

The Consequences of Corporate Influence

We’re already starting to see just how much power these organizations can have over American politics.  Last week, President Obama vetoed a bill, which apparently was the first one he vetoed with the intent to outright kill.  And thank God for that; this bill, H.R. 3808 or the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010, would have been a disaster for the average American.  Over the last couple of weeks, a major scandal has been occurring throughout the nation that has flown somewhat under the radar until just recently.

Without going into too many details, essentially the people whose job it is to read over all the documents as part of foreclosure proceedings have been signing off on an affidavit saying that they’ve read all the documents and determined that they are correct – without actually having done so.  Currently, most banks have stopped foreclosures in the 23 states that require a court to oversee a foreclosure; Bank of America stopped foreclosures nationwide.  Now, members of Congress, the public, and even President Obama himself are rightly calling for a Justice Department investigation into the practice, and rightfully so.

The IRNA would have greatly facilitated these banks’ ability to run roughshod over the homeowners, and it pretty much set a record with the speed it passed through Congress.  According to the New York Times, it passed by voice vote in the House of Representatives, and by the Senate’s equivalent, the unanimous consent.  How?  Congress can’t get anything done all term, and this suddenly passes with no debate or objections?!?! Heck, the bill’s main advocates at least as far as the Senate is concerned, the National Notary Association, were even surprised by how quickly it made it to the President’s desk.

Even so, it’s highly illogical to accept the idea that one trade organization was responsible just by talking to one Senator who just happens to be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  I would not be surprised if significant Wall Street backing, and especially the Chamber of Commerce, whose influence derailed or threatened to derail most of the legislation this term spent money on elected officials to make sure they vote for this one.  The statement by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)

“When Congress passed the legislation, no concerns or objections had been expressed…Now that concerns have been raised, Congress should reexamine whether this bill might have an unintended impact on foreclosures in the future. We certainly do not believe that is what Representative Aderholt [the House's main sponsor] and the other cosponsors of the legislation intended.”

seems very weak.  In fact, I’m almost certain there was some sort of outside influence in favor of this bill.  The system of checks and balances happened to work this time, but what happens if we get a President who isn’t as vigilant about protecting the average American?  Something like this could have easily been signed into law by a pro-business President, perhaps even our previous one.  It would certainly fit the whole deregulation fervor that was sweeping the nation for the past 20 years and only ended with the recession.  The function of these PACs, 527s, Super PACs, and other organizations is to elect candidates that favor their interests.  Just stop and imagine for a second what would happen if they get their way…

The Welcome to the Corporate States of America? by The New Age of Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Tags: Chamber of Commerce, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Congress, foreclosure crisis, Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010, Law of Unintended Consequences, National Notary Association, Political action committee, Politics, President Obama, Representative Robert Aderholt, Senator Patrick Leahy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, United States Chamber of Commerce