Democracy on the Edge: A Discussion of Political Issues in America

By Terry A. AmRhein and Dr. William K. Fifield

Trying to make sense of political issues in the United States can be challenging, especially with the "spin" placed on so many issues by media and politicians. If you are fed up with lies and half-truths and want real answers, look no further!   Democracy on the Edge discusses these important issues: • The Supreme Court’s decision on “Citizens United”• How gun ownership is a right but has limitations• The effects of global warming (by W. K. Fifield, MD)• How health care issues affect all Americans• The influence of big business on American lives• Causes of the “Financial Crisis,” and what Congress has done• The Tea Party and their conflicting views• America’s deep debt and plans to dig out of it While based on verifiable facts, Democracy on the Edge is also filled with Terry’s flare for personal anecdotes and humorous quips that make the book delightful to read.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Hillcrest Media Group
• Release date: May 12, 2015
• ISBN: 9781634134347

Book preview

place.

INTRODUCTION

9/11 changed my life. I remember I was at work preparing for a meeting when I heard the news. At first I thought it was an accident until the second plane hit the tower. What on earth had happened! I was totally distraught; how could anyone hate Americans so much that they would kill 3,000 people?

Over the following months and years I began to gather information to learn why Al Qaeda hates us. I read many books. One written by Sayyid Qutb, first published in 1964, called Milestones or Sign Posts in the Road, was particularly relevant. Qutb was an Egyptian who was educated in the United States. He was a Muslim fundamentalist who was appalled at the decadence and licentiousness of American culture. His book extracted excerpts from the Quran to prove that America is evil and that all good Muslims should fight against American culture at every turn. Osama bin Laden was a disciple of Qutb’s teachings. I also read Approaching the Quran by Michael Sells, which translated many of the suras (verses) into English and then explained their meaning. The Quran is written in poetic verse and the meanings of the suras are not always obvious. I learned that, just like the Bible, the Quran is basically a moral book that preaches moral ideas. I learned that there are many similarities between the Bible and the Quran: a belief in one God, kindness toward your neighbors and the celebration of holy days like Ramadan and Christmas. Also however, like the Bible, the Quran has passages that, if taken out of context and misinterpreted by religious fanatics, could be used to incite extreme violence and ultra-intolerance. Some Muslims extend the belief in one God to such extremes that they will follow only the teachings of God and not any other authority, such as a regional or national government or ruler. Some Muslim governments are intertwined with the Muslim faith and the practice of Islamic law called the Sharia. Obviously bin Laden believed in this only one God principle and was appalled at the United States’ intrusion into the Muslim holy land of Arabia.

When President George W. Bush announced that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were preparing weapons of mass destruction and that Hussein had contacts with bin Laden, I knew this could not be true. Religious fanatics do not violate their most sacred laws and cooperate with a ruthless dictator. The Bush administration was perpetrating a fraud on the American public. There was never a clear and present danger to America from Saddam Hussein and Bush and his cronies knew it. Almost 4,500 Americans have sacrificed their lives for their country in Iraq under completely contrived pretenses from our country’s leaders. Books such as State of Denial by Bob Woodward confirm that Bush was predisposed to attack Hussein regardless of the facts.

After the invasion, Bush declared Mission Accomplished and appointed J. Paul Bremer as special envoy to Iraq. Soon after his appointment, Bremer dissolved the Baath party, effectively eliminating the Iraqi government, and disbanded the Iraqi army. Bremer had just created one million enemies in a very hostile country; most of the people in the government and the entire military, the majority of them armed. It was the dumbest move I could imagine and extended the war for years, adding billions to the cost of the war and innumerable names to the death toll.

Then came the financial crisis at the end of the Bush administration. Again, I was astounded. How could such a strong prosperous nation plunge from the height of success and prosperity into the perdition of bankruptcy, foreclosures and massive deficits in only a few months? Again I took to educating myself. Much of the information about the financial crisis was available on the internet (although not all of it is true) from sites like Wikipedia. National Public Radio also provided valuable information about the crisis along with articles in newspaper and magazines. The Great American Bubble Machine by Matt Taibbi for example, is an article published in Rolling Stone Magazine that describes how Goldman Sachs has been swindling America for decades.

By this time I was getting sick and tired of lies and half truths, of statements by members of political parties without any proof of their veracity. Republicans statements suggesting that enactment of Obamacare will lead to death panels that dole out healthcare, were patently absurd to me. Anyone who believed this, as Sarah Palin apparently did, has no faith in the American system of democracy and justice. Yet many Americans believe it!

Well, I’m fed up! As an engineer and scientist, I try to make my decisions based on facts. I decided to write a book to investigate various political issues and to explain to those people willing to listen (and read), what the situation really is. I’m not a political scientist, sociologist or politician but I have learned through the years to take complex ideas and break them down into simplified terms that can be understood by non-experts. This is what I did, with the help of William Fifield, MD who wrote the chapter on global warming, to break down the sometimes complex and controversial political issues in America into easily understood and informative chapters. These chapters are sprinkled with humorous, personal experiences and entertaining interludes to help illustrate key points. I call this book Democracy on the Edge, A Discussion of Political Issues in America. I truly hope you enjoy it.

CHAPTER 1

CITIZENS UNITED, SUPER PACS AND NONPROFITS

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In 2010, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed corporations, unions and associations to have the same freedom of speech rights as individuals and therefore permitted them to spend literally unlimited funds on political campaign advertising. Corporations, unions and associations (like the National Automobile Dealers Association) henceforth, are allowed to spend millions of dollars to expound on the superior qualities and virtues of their candidate and why he or she is uniquely fit to be elected to the office of President or Senator or Congressman. Or corporations, unions and associations can likewise spend millions of dollars telling the voting public why a particular candidate is a lying, deceitful, good-for-nothing who has fabricated and falsified all of his or her so-called achievements throughout his or her entire life and in fact is not even an American citizen.

To understand how this situation developed, we must look back into history. As far back as 1907, under a law called the Tillman Act, corporations were prevented from contributing money directly to candidates’ political campaigns. Following in kind, in 1947 Congress enacted the Taft-Hartley Act that, among other things, prohibited labor unions from contributing directly to a candidate’s campaign. Although these laws prohibited corporations and unions from contributing directly to campaigns, nothing prohibited them from acting as a fundraiser for a candidate. The Congress of Industrial Organizations, a federation of labor unions that would later merge with the American Federation of Labor to become the AFL-CIO, formed the first political action committee (PAC) to help raise funds for candidates favorable to their view. In response, corporations began their own fundraising efforts and established their own PACs. The PACs then contributed money to their candidates’ campaigns. So what we had were laws forbidding corporations and unions from donating directly into a candidate’s campaign fund, but they were allowed to donate to a PAC and then the PAC could make donations directly to the candidate’s campaign. These shenanigans proceeded for quite a while, with corporations contributing through PACs to candidate’s campaigns to help assure the candidate’s election and subsequent favorable votes on legislation. Union members, likewise, contributed to their candidates in an attempt to influence votes. This practice was followed by both parties, Democrat and Republican. No one was immune to the candidate contribution fever. As elections progressed, Democratic contributions competed against Republican contributions, in true capitalistic fashion, and election campaigns became more and more costly. PACs for unions and corporations remained unregulated and influential in political campaigns until the 1970s. In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act and in 1974, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was created. As a result of the FEC’s creation, rules were finally established to regulate how PACs were funded and how PACs could spend their money. The rules required, among other things, that:

Corporations and unions cannot contribute to PACs.

Contributions to PACs must come from individuals, with a limit of $5,000 per year.

Corporations and unions cannot contribute directly to candidates or parties, (because of the Tillman and Taft Hartley acts). However, PACs are allowed to contribute directly to candidates and political parties. For multi-candidate PACs, the contribution is limited to $5,000 per candidate, per election and $15,000 to a party per year. (For single-candidate PACs, the limits are $2,600 per candidate per election and $32,400 to a party per year.)

The names of most donors and the expenditures of the PAC must be disclosed in monthly or quarterly reports to the FEC.

So this is how Political Action Committees function. These rules still apply to PACs today (the donation amounts are periodically adjusted for inflation).

From the 1970s to the beginning of the 21st century, the costs of elections continued to grow, and the influence of corporations and unions helped fund this growth. In 2002, Congress, concerned about the growth in election finances and the influence of corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold Act, named after Senators John McCain, Republican from Arizona, and Russ Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin. The law sought to reduce the influence that corporations, unions and the rich had on federal elections. As part of McCain-Feingold, electioneering communications were forbidden. Electioneering communications are defined as a broadcast that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Although the law allowed PACs and other political organizations to support their candidates, it attempted to reduce the influence of these groups by limiting media exposure in the critical time just before elections. Of course, there will always be somebody who will test the constitutional waters of any law they don’t like. So in 2008 a conservative 501c4 nonprofit corporation (more on nonprofits and 501c4s in a minute) called Citizens United sought to show Hillary: The Movie on Direct TV within 30 days of the Democratic primary. The movie was critical of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination for President. Fearing that showing Hillary was a violation of the electioneering communications law, Citizens United sought an injunction from the U.S. District Court of Washington D. C. to show the movie. The District Court upheld the law saying that showing the political information within the prohibited time limits was unlawful. So, of course, Citizens United appealed that decision and the case reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided on January 21, 2010, that it was unconstitutional to limit free speech provided by the First Amendment through restrictions on independent communications by corporations, unions and trade associations. The word independent is important. It means communications that are conducted with no coordination with the political party or candidate (i.e. the expenditures are independent of the party and candidate). The decision did not overturn the Tillman Act or the Taft-Hartley Act forbidding corporations, unions and associations from making direct contributions to political campaigns or parties. But it did make portions of the McCain-Feingold Act unconstitutional, and it overturned the ruling in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. (In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to prohibit corporations from using funds to make independent expenditures on candidates. In other words, prohibiting independent expenditures did not violate the Constitution.) Citizens United was a very similar case, and the court decided exactly the opposite.

The Supreme Court effectively permitted a new type of PAC, an independent expenditure only committee in which the PAC can expend its funds on advertisements and commercials independent of the candidate’s campaign. Following the Citizens United decision, corporations, unions and trade associations are now allowed to make unlimited contributions to independent expenditure only committees. Voila! The super PAC is born. While the contribution limits for a traditional PAC are limited to $5,000 from individuals only, for super PACs contributions are now unlimited, and corporations, unions and associates are allowed to contribute. In addition, these super PACs are not limited by the amount of money they can spend on their independent expenditures. The sky is the limit!

Following Citizens United, SpeechNow.org, an independent expenditure only committee, filed suit against the Federal Election Commission to allow individuals to also make unlimited contributions. The Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals decided in March 2010, based on the Citizens United case, that individuals’ contributions to super PACs were also unlimited. Corporations, unions, trade organizations and now individuals have no limit on the amounts they can contribute to super PACs.

Why, after about 100 years (1907 to about 2007) of Congress repeatedly attempting to limit the influence of big business and big labor on the national elections, would the Supreme Court decide to open the floodgates and let the deluge of money flood into on the election process?

The Citizens United decision.

The Citizens United case was a 5-to-4 decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

He stated that the First Amendment does not differentiate between business corporations and news corporations. Therefore the McCain-Feingold Act would allow Congress to regulate newspapers (for example, suppressing political commentary) like it restricts some business transactions and corporate dealings in the business world.

The majority further reasoned that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to single individuals and does not limit free speech based on the identity of the speaker.

The question regarding the influence of big money was also addressed. The majority ruling stated that there is no evidence of quid pro quo (i.e. donors getting favors from the candidate in exchange for their contributions to a campaign) for large donations. However, large sums are required to provide information to the public, and differing opinions support the public’s further knowledge of the issue. After all, the court asserted, There is no such thing as too much speech.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, whose ire over the decision is evident. The decision of the court ... threatens to undermine the integrity of the elected institutions across the nation...A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold. Justice Stevens referenced a number of First Amendment cases that argued that the court had long recognized that to deny Congress the power to safeguard against the improper use of money to influence the result [of an election] is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self-protection.

Justice Stevens addressed a number of major issues with the decision:

Expenditures on a campaign, although they may not provide a specific quid pro quo, provides the donor access to the candidate.

Expenditures create the appearance of corruption.

The unique quality of corporate perpetual life (e.g. to amass large sums of money, to have limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose other than profit making and no loyalty) makes them a danger to a democratic election. The court should allow legislators to regulate corporate participation in the political process. Legal entities are not We the People. The First Amendment protects individuals’ self-expression. Corporate spending is the farthest from the core of political expression protected by the Constitution. Spending on a political campaign is just a business transaction to a corporation.

Justice Stevens attacked the idea that corporate spending allows the general public to hear all available information. Business has unfair influence because of vast sums of money that distort the debate, pushing other ideas off the prime broadcast spots and thus dominating the market. Justice Stevens added that the constitution recognizes limits on free speech, such as fighting words, obscenity restrictions and time/place utterances (you cannot shout fire in a movie theater unless there is truly a fire). Too much speech from one source drowns out other points of view.

The idea that Congress could sensor the media as a corporation should be dealt with when and if that situation occurs and not pre-empt a decision before it happens. Justice Stevens said the new rules prohibit a law from distinguishing between a speaker and a funding source. He press-visualized the and corporations as entities that are dealt with one by one. The majority view freedom of the press as a process or activity, applicable to all citizens and groups, people and corporations alike.

Justice Stevens also expressed his concern that the new laws would make it very difficult for states to deal with corruption in elections.

The new laws ignore the rights of the shareholders. Corporate officers and shareholders can contribute to PACs separately from, and possibly in opposition to, the contributions made by the corporation. In fact, the ruling provides corporate officers two voices in the political arena, one as the corporate officer and the other as an individual.

The results of the Citizens United case and the advent of super PACs in influencing the national elections may not have reached their full potential during the 2012 election. The Federal Election Commission reported that in the 2008 election, about $1.8 billion was spent on Presidential primary elections, general elections and conventions.¹ For the 2012 elections, the value rose to about $2.4 billion according to the Washington Post.² These values, however, are highly suspicious because of slippery campaign financing tricks and fuzzy regulations governing campaign finances, which will be discussed later. Nevertheless, the super PACs prevalent in 2012 are important. You will hear their names again in future elections. So here are the top 10 conservative and top 10 liberal super PACs based on expenditures in the 2012 election along with some information about each one.³

For a more complete up-to-date listing of super PACs and expenditures go to www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2014.

You will remember that these PACs are independent expenditure only committees; their expenditures are required to be independent of a candidate’s campaign. However, look at the names of people running these super PACs, both Republican and Democrat. Many of them worked with the candidates or worked in arenas closely associated with the candidates. They know the candidates well and are totally familiar with the candidates’ stand on the issues. Hmm, makes you wonder what independent truly means, doesn’t it?

Also note that total super PAC contributions to Republicans in the 2012 national elections (President, Senators and Representatives) far outweighed the contributions to Democrats. According to the Washington Post, Republicans received $225 million compared to $92 million for the Democrats.⁴ Of course, the Republicans had a national primary that helped elevate the amounts. Still, Mitt Romney received more super PAC money then Barack Obama. Of course, super PACs are not the only source of money. The Republican National Committee and the Democrat National Committee also collect and disburse huge amounts of money. Individuals are allowed to contribute up to $30,800 to a national political party each year (in 2014 this amount became $32,400) and traditional PACs are allowed to contribute $15,000. Again, according to the Washington Post, Republicans received $351 million from their national committee and Democrats received $289 million. In addition, the campaigns can also request donations from ordinary citizens (i.e. all y’all folks). (Remember, corporations and unions cannot contribute directly to candidates.) Individuals can donate up to $2,500 ($2,600 in 2014) per candidate per election and traditional PACs, $5,000. In this category, Romney received $479 million and Obama received $733 million. Adding all this up, and allowing for some funds not included in the above three categories, Romney received $1.18 billion and Obama received $1.2 billion.⁵

Just as important as the amount of campaign financing being raised, is the who that is making the contributions to the super PACs. Eighty percent of the contributions to the super PACs came from 100 to 200 individuals,⁶,⁷ not corporations or unions. These individuals include:

Sheldon Adelson, billionaire gambling magnate, donated $10 million to Romney’s super PAC Restore Our Future and $21.5 million to Newt Gingrich’s super PAC, Winning Our Future.

Harold Simmons of Contran Corp., donated $10 to $20 million to American Crossroads run by Karl Rove, $2 million to Restore Our Future.

Bob Perry, the late homebuilder and instigator in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that helped derail John Kerry’s bid for President, gave at least $4 million (maybe $10 million) to Restore Our Future, $7.5 million to American Crossroads.

Joseph Ricketts, founder of TD Ameritrade and head of the family that owns the Chicago Cubs, donated $12.25 million to his own super PAC, End Spending Action Fund.

Bill Marriott, Marriott Hotel International, contributed $1 million to Restore Our Future supporting Mitt Romney. Romney served on the Marriott’s board of directors. Both Romney and Marriott are members of the Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Fred Eychaner, owner of Newsweb Corp., donated $3.8 million to Majority PAC, $3.75 million to House Majority PAC, $3.5 million to Priority USA.

James Simons, chairman of Renaissance Technologies, donated $3.5 million to Priorities USA and $3 million to Majority PAC.

Peter Thiel, libertarian venture capitalist, co-founded PayPal, donated $2.6 million to Endorse Liberty in support of Ron Paul.

Robert Rowling, runs TRT Holdings that owns Omni Hotels and Gold’s Gym, gave $5 million to American Crossroads.

William Koch, energy magnate, gave $4 million to Restore Our Future.

Jeffrey Katzenberg, film producer, former chairman of Walt Disney Studios and