The State House of Representatives should not have voted to legalize, under the laws of our state, unlimited, direct corporate spending to influence elections.
Unfortunately that is exactly what it did on Saturday evening.
At issue was state legislation designed to be the state's response a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. In a previous post, I described why this Supreme Court decision was so wrong...
The part of the legislation that is the real problem is in sections 7 and 8 of the bill. For example, section 7 says:
In the face of such an affront to democracy as this Supreme Court decision, I strongly believe that our state must do whatever is possible to expose this decision as wrong and press for its immediate reversal. Keeping the ban on direct corporate and union spending on election campaigns in the laws of our state is essential to maintaining that stand against the Supreme Court's decision.
It is not possible to underestimate just how bad this Supreme Court decision is - not just the decision, itself, but the fact that it sets forth the policy of the Supreme Court to strike down laws that protect democracy and free speech for average, everyday Americans in favor of a distorted alternative that corrupts our democracy by letting powerful interests literally buy control of government.
While this is truly disappointing, I am heartened that most Americans - Democrats, independents and Republicans - agree that this Supreme Court decision is wrong for our nation (from the Washington Post):
Unfortunately that is exactly what it did on Saturday evening.
At issue was state legislation designed to be the state's response a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. In a previous post, I described why this Supreme Court decision was so wrong...
...the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision that grants large corporations - including corporations from foreign countries - a nearly unlimited ability to use massive amounts of money to directly control our election process - handing massive power to the very corporate special interests that caused the economic meltdown that we are struggling to lift our nation out of today.Most of the bill approved by the State House was sound - requiring disclosure in corporate and union independent campaign expenditures of what corporation or union did the spending and requiring CEOs to openly approve the ads for which their corporations pay. These requirements are not very strong, in that it will be easy for corporate attorneys to find ways to use shell corporations and clever accounting to hide what corporations are really doing the spending on political ads. However, these rules are better than nothing.
The part of the legislation that is the real problem is in sections 7 and 8 of the bill. For example, section 7 says:
This overtly makes the laws of the State of Connecticut agree with the Supreme Court's decision to legalize unlimited corporate spending to buy control of elections. Doing this is just, plain wrong.Sec. 7. Section 9-613 of the general statutes is amended by adding subsection (g) as follows (Effective from passage):(NEW) (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a corporation, cooperative association, limited partnership, professional association, limited liability company or limited liability partnership, whether formed in this state or any other, acting alone, may make independent expenditures.
In the face of such an affront to democracy as this Supreme Court decision, I strongly believe that our state must do whatever is possible to expose this decision as wrong and press for its immediate reversal. Keeping the ban on direct corporate and union spending on election campaigns in the laws of our state is essential to maintaining that stand against the Supreme Court's decision.
It is not possible to underestimate just how bad this Supreme Court decision is - not just the decision, itself, but the fact that it sets forth the policy of the Supreme Court to strike down laws that protect democracy and free speech for average, everyday Americans in favor of a distorted alternative that corrupts our democracy by letting powerful interests literally buy control of government.
I had hoped to persuade for changes in this legislation before it was brought before the full House of Representatives. When that did not happen, I attempted to offer an amendment to the bill to remove sections 7 and 8. This would have made the legislation stronger - requiring minimal disclosure of corporate political spending, but maintaining our state's statutory ban on this corporate control of elections. Unfortunately, I was barred from bringing my amendment to the floor of the House of Representatives.
While this is truly disappointing, I am heartened that most Americans - Democrats, independents and Republicans - agree that this Supreme Court decision is wrong for our nation (from the Washington Post):
Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.
The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).Hopefully, the people of our great nation will press for the change needed to turn back the terrible affront to democracy that this Supreme Court decision is, and restore the value that democracy belongs to the people.
