The primary defeat of an incumbent Republican member of Congress on Tuesday in Ohio has provoked some cries of dismay from the media and other sectors of the chattering classes. No one really cares about Rep. Jean Schmidt, who lost her race in her Cincinnati-area district to a relatively unknown podiatrist. But the reason for concern we are told is the fact that Schmidt was, in part, taken down by a GOP insurgency in which a super PAC played a significant role. That’s the conceit of a New York Times feature this morning about the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that limited the federal government’s ability to restrict political speech in the form of election advertisements. A Houston-based political action committee called the Campaign for Primary Accountability spent about $200,000 to help defeat Schmidt and is taking an active role in other races where incumbents are being challenged.
The Times story attempts to paint such super PACs as tools of corporate interests, which fits in with the liberal critique of Citizens United as undermining democracy. But the real moral of this story is very different. By making it easier for groups to spend money promoting their ideas and/or opposing candidates, the court has destroyed the dynamic of most congressional races in which it was virtually impossible for challengers to raise enough money to take on entrenched incumbents. The victim of Citizens United isn’t democracy; it’s the laws and traditions of congressional politics that amounted to a near-foolproof incumbent protection plan.
As The Hill points out in their piece on Schmidt’s loss, ethics charges as well as her lack of sympathy for Tea Party principles made her vulnerable. Her opponent Brad Wenstrup was also a more formidable foe than was generally understood. But the infusion of cash into this race by the super PAC helped offset the otherwise enormous advantage that a sitting member of the House such as Schmidt has in such a primary. Incumbents are magnets for campaign contributions because everyone with a cause or an interest to be served by congressional legislation or influence wants to be in their good graces. There is no such incentive to help their challengers.
Incumbents always think there is something not quite kosher about anything that makes it easy for those out of power to hold them accountable. The mainstream media, which prizes its constitutionally protected right to exercise influence on elections, similarly looks askance at efforts to break up their monopoly on campaign information via campaign advertising. Citizens United has not injected more money into our political system since money has always been — and always will be — an integral part of campaigns. Though incumbents will always have great advantages, what the High Court has done is to tilt the playing field a little bit more towards the challengers. Though President Obama and the liberal chorus in which the Times plays a key role decries this change, what they are complaining about is more democracy, not less.
Bravo for Citizens United – any help is welcome in getting the message through apathetic skulls who tend to vote for an incumbent just because their name is more familiar. nI'm not being partisan here – Dem or Republican – one of our most important DUTIES as Americans, is to cast informed and educated votes!
"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." -Alex Carey, Australian social scientist n nIt is normal for all large businesses to make serious efforts to influence the news, to avoid embarrassing publicity, and to maximize sympathetic public opinion and government policies. Now they own most of the news media that they wish to influence. – Excerpt from The Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian n nThe Press Exemption: n n"Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a "special interest" by any definition, and heavily engaged in the "issue advocacy" and "independent expenditure" realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it.
From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms applied only to citizens. n nFrom 1886 to 1973 citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms. n nIn 1974 Congress set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. n nBut they exempted the corporate media and created the State approved press: n2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
Freedoms of speech, press and assembly are inalienable rights not privileges government may license and restrict! n nFrom 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms applied only to flesh and blood citizens. n nFrom 1886 to 1973 citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms. n nIn 1974 Congress amended FECA and set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. n nCampaign laws exempt the speech and press of corporate media creating the State approved press. Speech and press by flesh and blood are treated as privileges government may license and restrict. n nCampaign laws are responsible for the corporate voice having more influence in our elections than the voice of natural persons. n
The same SuperPAC is going after my corrupt Rep. Spencer Bachus. I heartily approve… only problem is, the one primary challenger with any name recognition and a resume is just plain crazy. So that is our choice: corrupt v. crazy. Also, the challenger's office will not call me back to answer a few questions which might possibly get my vote.
All the candidates should get the same amount of money and time on national radio and TV.
The apathy of the citizens is directly related to the education they get in school. nEvery body should take a course on the duties of a citizen in a democracy and everybody should be obliged to vote or get penalized. nThere are obligations and responsibilities if we want to maintain and or improve our system. nAccountability is for EVERYBODY, not just the President or MPs. n