Are the super rich perverting our constitution in the political process?

Are the super rich perverting our constitution in the political process?

By Dave & Nita Anand

The Las Vegas casino Mogul Sheldon Adelson kept the presidential hopes
of Newt Gingrich alive since the start of the GOP elections by infusing large
sums from his personal wealth to "Winning the Future" — the super
Political Action Committee supporting Gingrich in the Republican caucuses and
primaries. Similarly, the millionaire Foster Friess of Wyoming is bank­rolling
the pro-Rick-Santorum group (Red, White and Blue Fund), while several wealthy
individuals are behind "Restore our Future" super PAC in support of
Mitt Romney's candidacy.

The financial support of Gingrich should trigger a new debate on campaign
financing and First Amendment speech rights vested in super PACs by the U.S.
Supreme Court decision of 2010. By that five to four decision in favor of
Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the high court has allowed
unlimited corporate and union spending in elections as a token of free speech.

While the super PACs are confusing the campaign financing process, the recent
Montana Supreme Court decision to uphold a century-old ban on corporate
campaign spending in the state (Montana's 1912 Corrupt Practices Act), has
befuddled the workings of the nation's highest court. Acknowledging the
conflict with Citizens United, Montana's Chief Justice Mike McGrath justified
the five to two vote since the state was endangered by the "continued
efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican
form of government."

During the review of Montana's ruling that they blocked, Justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer are now suggesting reconsidering the Citizen United decision. Montana's ruling should give the U.S. Supreme Court another look at how the ultra-rich people like Adelson may be influencing election outcomes when the Citizen United decision was reached to specifically forbid such king-making corruption, as well as protect free speech.

All super PACS are suspected of this incongruity and could be breaching the
court's condition "as long as they do not coordinate with candidates or
campaigns." This condition comes from Buckley vs. Valeo of 1976 that tried
to reconcile free speech or unlimited donations for electing anyone one wishes,
with the issue of influence peddling and corruption.

Interestingly, the primary issue of "soft money" — funding that is routed via organizations and groups instead of political parties and campaigns, and which was curtailed by the McCain-Feingold Bill of 2002 — has now reincarnated as a super PAC. Like a super PAC, soft money contributions used to be unlimited with no government oversight before the McCain-Feingold bill became the law and formally took the name "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act." Even though incongruous in nature — supporters of super PACS can take solace in the government oversight prescribed for such entities.

According to the ad tracking firm Kantar Media/CMAG, the Republican super PACS
together have spent more than twice on media advertising than have the
candidates' campaigns. Since Romney's super PAC has the most funds, it is able
to outspend others by as much as 10 to one in some instances and make a significant difference in the process.

We can easily do away with super PACS if the government were to rescind all
restrictions on individual contributions to candidates and their campaigns. In
the current system, we have a basic limit of $2,500 per candidate per election
or a total of $5,000 for a primary and general election together. By letting
the wealthy give directly and freely to any candidate of their choice as a free
speech right — we will expose who is doing what as a Kingmaker, instead of them
hiding behind the contorted super PACS and pulling the strings.

In the name of First Amendment, the super rich via super PACs are corrupting
politicians and jeopardizing the political system with the evils of money. This
was apparent when Gingrich took a cheap shot at Romney during the South
Carolina debate where he challenged Romney's claim that he had no control over
his super PAC when he said: "It makes you wonder how much influence he'd
have if he were president."

In addition to each candidates' "not so close" relationship with
their respective super PAC — the wealthy individuals (billionaire financiers,
hedge fund managers and corporate tycoons) pushing the super PACs with blank
checks — have their personal agenda.

For example, Foster Friess caused a brouhaha when he weighed in on the issue of
contraception so dear to Rick Santorum by making a disparaging remark about
women: "You know, back in my days, they'd use Bayer aspirin for
contraceptives — the gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that
costly." Santorum swept the uproar aside by calling it a bad off-color
joke, but many women's groups were not so amused, even though Friess later
apologized for the silly quip.

Since the Republican super PACs have succeeded in raising huge sums, now President Barack Obama, who was earlier opposed to special-interest money in politics, is encouraging fund raising by his super PAC "Priorities USA Action." So
big money has influenced Obama's thinking too as he wants to be re-elected.

Paul S. Ryan, associate counsel at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, had
this to say: "Candidates are now beholden to mega-funders in a way that,
at a minimum, creates an appearance of corruption and may lead to actual
corruption. Elected officials will likely do the bidding of their mega-funders
while in office, rather than acting in the public interest, knowing that
they'll need to rely on such mega-funders for reelection."

Looks like there is a real threat to our democracy from these unlimited
contributions in the name of free speech and some are claiming that our
dilution or the more appropriate corruption of the First Amendment of the
Constitution is to be blamed for it. Back in his days, Abraham Lincoln observed
quite insightfully: "We the people are the rightful masters of both
Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the
men who pervert the Constitution."

This November we must overthrow once again the men who pervert the
Constitution.


Dave Anand (danand55@gmail.com), a former technology executive, has written
and published two books: "People Super Highway, the Mystique & Quest
of Soul" and "The Verses."