Sphere of Power V
Sphere of Power V
It's time to throw off the chains of despotism.
This week we have discussed all the different types of power and manipulation of power in and out of our sphere. We learned how our power became corrupted as the opportunity to have our concerns heard and met was limited with the capping of the house. Today we will discuss the monied interests that have taken over our system and how we repair it.
What is the difference between Direct vs. Indirect Corruption?
Direct corruption refers to the act of offering, soliciting, or accepting bribes or other inducements in exchange for a specific action or decision. Direct corruption involves a direct exchange of value between the corruptor and the corruptee, to achieve a specific outcome that benefits one party at the expense of another.
Indirect corruption, on the other hand, refers to more subtle forms of influence or manipulation that may not involve a direct exchange of value but still have the effect of distorting or subverting the decision-making process. Indirect corruption can take many forms, including lobbying, cronyism, nepotism, favoritism, or using personal connections or influence to secure favorable treatment or outcomes.
While direct corruption is often easier to identify and prosecute, indirect corruption can be more insidious and difficult to detect, as it often involves more subtle forms of influence or manipulation. However, both direct and indirect corruption can have serious negative consequences for society: eroding public trust in institutions, undermining the rule of law, and leading to unequal and unfair outcomes.
What is Citizens United?
Citizens United is a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly changed the regulation of campaign finance in the United States. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of political elections.
Before Citizens United, federal law prohibited corporations and labor unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures in support of or opposition to political candidates. However, the Citizens United decision struck down these restrictions, arguing that they violated the free speech rights of corporations and other organizations. This allowed the wealthy to use their means to drown out the individual's voice. It gave corporations rights and access above that of the individual Citizen.
Citizens United narrowly redefined campaign corruption as quid pro quo or direct corruption while essentially legalizing indirect corruption, such as money laundering through PACs. As a result of the Citizens United decision, Super PACs and other groups are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising and other activities, as long as they do not coordinate directly with political campaigns. This decision has significantly impacted the U.S. political system, increasing the amount of money spent on political campaigns and a rise in the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations on the political process.
While running for Congress a year ago, I was supposed to be fundraising. Instead, I was studying communication, history, law, and economics and building a deeper relationship with my community. Also, I was writing poetry about it.
What is citizens United? It’s a Supreme Court ruling that is short sighted It defines corruption as quid pro quo something most of us do not know Our founders would be appalled for it was written into the articles of the times that called Franklin’s diamond encrusted snuff box nothing more than a way to adore The king and his wealth so he could be in good health Keeping the many under the thumb of those in power While the rest of us would be left to glower Corruption isn’t just quid pro quo Corruption is an indirect show To bring our country back to where it belongs We must repeal Citizens United to undo all the wrongs We must add an amendment to define what the founders had in mind When they decided a person holding office shall receive no present or emolument of any kind
How did we get here?
Citizens United was the culmination of court cases that manipulated the individual's rights in favor of the corporation's rights. Each case focused on a specific problem but, taken as a whole, has destroyed individual liberty in favor of corporate personhood. When an individual has to compete with a corporation with the resources of a small country and the wealth of a king to get their voice heard, then the individual is silenced. Below is a list of cases that slowly shifted power away from the state government and citizens and to the federal government and corporations.
Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) - This case held that a private corporation (Dartmouth College) had a constitutional right to operate free from interference by the state government. Establishing the principle that private corporations were entitled to the same legal protections as individuals under the Constitution, including the right to enter into contracts and the right to due process.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) - While this case did not directly grant rights to corporations, it is often cited as the first case in which the Supreme Court suggested that corporations are "persons" entitled to constitutional protections.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) - The ruling established the principle that campaign spending is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment but also allowed for some limits on contributions to political campaigns.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) - This case extended the First Amendment's protection of free speech to corporations, allowing them to spend money on ballot initiatives.
The Current System
Currently, the candidate spends the majority of their time fundraising. When I ran for Congress, there were 11 of us, and we all got on the stage only a few times together. Each candidate was expected to attend standard events and also encouraged to get their name out. When we got on stage together, only about a hundred or so people were there. Events were recorded but not readily available for the public. If a candidate wants to get their name out, they will need money. That means fundraising. Candidates who fundraise to get their name out and attend the expected events have no time left to inform and listen to constituents. Yes, they talk to the donors. And the people in the room at the expected event. However, at each event, it’s typically the same people. A candidate who doesn’t fundraise is challenged with being drowned out by all the other messaging. They are left only speaking to a few hundred people. This system encourages candidates to listen to money, not people. The first advice I was offered when I expressed running for office was that I needed to start a PAC. The second was a recommendation to take a fundraising class. How many other candidates get this same advice? The people who lead us are being led by money to get into office.
How do we refocus?
We must focus our electioneering system away from fundraising and refocus it on communication. Instead of having each candidate fundraise and attend specific events for a small group of people. Each candidate should attend regular community discussions three times a week at different places inside the district. The candidates meet with each other and the community and have a discussion. Any fundraising done is focused on promoting community discussions with the candidates. The regularity, frequency, and multiple locations will make it more likely citizens with busy work and family lives can attend. Focusing the fundraising into one message instead of 11 ensures the people of the district hear it. An open forum where citizens can engage the candidates and the candidates can engage each other freely allows the citizen more insight into the people they will be voting for. The community discussions should be recorded with video and audio and disbursed as a podcast and on youtube. This electioneering structure will allow those in the community who want to speak with their power an opportunity to do so. Those who don’t want to speak but still want to be informed can listen or watch. The job of a representative is communicating. The electioneering system should reflect that.
In this very high-tech world of communication, our electioneering system is living in the dark ages. If local parties build relationships with their communities and small business, the cost of putting on a professional show would be nominal. Today at the Madisonian meeting, John and I will be recorded by a local entrepreneur who wants to help his community. We will be recorded in a small business that wants to help its community. And the room will be filled with people who normally do not attend political events. And a couple of candidates. Hopefully.
The chains of despotism can take different forms. In our society, it’s the cash that controls our elections. This gives those with money a significant advantage over those without. The financier is heard but what about the mechanic? We can throw off the chains by refocusing our community on communication. When I say we need to throw off the chains of despotism, I want people to understand in our representative republican system, there is no master. The people hold the key. We have allowed this to happen, and we have a system of government that allows us to fix it. To do so, we need communities working together and building new leadership. Leadership that wants an electioneering system focused on communicating with their community rather than fundraising for the advertisers.