SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
citizens united
From Taxing the Rich to Defending Unions, the Best Defense Against Trump Will Be Offense
The super rich who backed the Republican president-elect must think they have us exactly where they want us. Now is the best time to turn the tables.
Nov 15, 2024
With Donald Trump about to re-enter the White House and his sidekicks about to assume control over Congress, America’s progressives are once again shifting — to playing defense. But the best defense, as one old football adage suggests, almost always turns out to be a good offense.
In the coming Trump redux, can we progressives take that adage to heart? Dare we go on offense and maybe even snatch a victory or two? We certainly can — if we start pushing for what the vast majority of Americans so want to see: an America where the really rich don’t run the show.
How much our richest run that show has never been more obvious. Campaign spending figures help tell that story.
Back at the beginning of our 21st century, out-of-state contributions to House and Senate races, be they from political action committees or individuals, funneled about the same amount of cash to candidates as in-state donors. These PACs and individuals faced strict limits on how much they could contribute politically. PACs, for their part, could accept no more than $5,000 from individuals each year and give no more than $5,000 directly to a candidate in each election cycle.
Enter the Super PAC. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision essentially gave America’s wealthiest and the corporations they run free rein to spend as much as they want to boost the candidates they find most appealing. This green light for what became known as “Super PACs” gave America’s richest the legal capacity to cement in place a new and “improved” plutocracy.
Dare we go on offense and maybe even snatch a victory or two? We certainly can — if we start pushing for what the vast majority of Americans so want to see: an America where the really rich don’t run the show.
In the 2024 election cycle alone, former AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer points out, Super PACs and related groups have spent seven times more on the candidates they support than those candidates have raised “from individuals in their own states.”
And that spending is coming overwhelmingly from the richest of America’s rich. In this year’s presidential race, according to the latest pre-election stats available, some 60 percent of all outlays on Donald Trump’s behalf were coming from the Super PAC universe, and 90 percent of that universe’s spending, Michael Podhorzer adds, was coming from the top donor 1 percent.
Just who from the ranks of our super rich are doing all this spending? We don’t exactly know for sure. Spending by outside contributors this election cycle, researchers from the campaign funding watchdog OpenSecrets reported on Election Day, hit an all-time record $4.5 billion, “with more than half of that spending coming from groups that do not fully disclose the source of their funding.”
America’s wealthiest “have always weighed in on politics,” as the business journal Forbes understatedly noted the day after Election Day, but their capacity to make a difference has significantly “ramped up.” These wealthy “can now make unlimited donations,” and those donations without limits have been making each election “more expensive than the last.”
And billionaires like things that way. Exulted crypto billionaire Tyler Winklevoss just after Trump’s triumph: “We are on the brink of a new American Renaissance.”
But billionaires today have an electoral influence that goes far beyond their hefty campaign contributions. In today’s social media environment, these rich can speak directly to potential voters. Between October 1 and Election Day, a Forbes analysis shows, America’s 200 richest billionaires posted over 2,000 comments on this year’s elections. Those comments gained over 10 billion reads.
And where did we end up, after all this billionaire spending and speaking out? We ended up with an exasperated electorate. Voter turnout in 2024, the political scientist Peter Dreier points out, ended up down more than 16 million votes, with Trump pulling over 2 million fewer ballots than in 2020 and Kamala Harris collecting over 14 million fewer than Joe Biden pocketed in 2020.
That turnout for the Democrats, Dreier argues, reflects the continuing weakness of America’s labor movement, despite the isolated labor organizing triumphs of recent years. Back in the mid-20th century, unions represented over a third of all U.S. private-sector workers. Last year, only 6 percent of private sector workers carried union cards.
If today’s union membership rate stood at a mere 20 percent of all workers, Dreier contends, “Harris would have won” because unions would have been able to reach more working people directly — including those “who might be gun owners or evangelical Christians” — “about why to vote” for pro-worker candidates.
Three generations ago, in mid-20th century America, high unionization rates kept in place World War II’s high federal tax rates on the nation’s highest incomes, rates that would run over 90 percent on top-bracket income throughout the 1950s. That twofer of a strong labor movement and high taxes on our nation’s richest would go on to nurture a political climate open to greater equality in every sphere.
Today’s richest, by contrast, pay taxes at rates that amount to a tiny fraction of what they pocket, and vast swatches of the American economy have essentially no union presence at all. Trump and his deep-pocketed pals can flourish and thrive in this environment. The task for the rest of us: to change it.
Can we win that fight? We can. Just look at the numbers.
Earlier this year, polling found that 71 percent of all likely voters — and even 53 percent of self-described Republicans — think billionaires should be paying more in taxes. Over two-thirds of the American people, Gallup reports, see themselves as union supporters. Even more Americans — 80 percent — favor higher taxes on corporations with CEOs who make over 50 times what their workers make. Top CEOs today averagehundreds of times what their workers earn.
Our super rich are now celebrating what they see as a glorious future. Let’s put them on the defensive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Stand With Working People and They Will Stand With You
Let's be very clear: the Democrats lost this election because they ignored the justified anger of working class America and became the defenders of a rigged economic and political system.
Nov 12, 2024
The results of the 2024 election have confirmed a reality that is too frequently denied by Democratic Party leaders and strategists: The American working class is angry — and for good reason.
They want to know why the very rich are getting much richer, and the CEOs of major corporations make almost 300 times more than their average employees, while weekly wages remain stagnant and 60 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.
They want to know why corporate profits soar while companies shut down factories in America and move to low-wage countries.
They want to know why the food industry enjoys record breaking profits, while they can’t afford their grocery bills.
They want to know why they can’t afford to go to a doctor or pay for their prescription drugs, and worry about going bankrupt if they end up in a hospital.
Donald Trump won this election because he tapped into that anger.
In the past few years we have made some positive changes. We must acknowledge, however, that what we’ve done is nowhere near enough.
Did he address any of these serious issues in a thoughtful or meaningful way? Absolutely not.
What he did do was divert the festering anger in our country at a greedy and out-of-touch corporate elite into a politics that served his political goals and will end up further enriching his fellow billionaires.
Trump’s “genius” is his ability to divide the working class so that tens of millions of Americans will reject solidarity with their fellow workers and pave the way for huge tax breaks for the very rich and large corporations.
While Trump did talk about capping credit card interest rates at 10 percent, and a new trade policy with China, his fundamental explanation as to why the working class was struggling was that millions of illegal immigrants have invaded America and that we are now an “occupied country.”
In his pathologically dishonest world, undocumented immigrants are illegally participating in our elections and voting for Democrats. They are creating massive amounts of crime, driving wages down, and taking our jobs. They are getting free health care and other benefits that are denied to American citizens. They are even eating our pets.
That explanation is grossly racist, cruel, and fallacious. But it is an explanation.
And what do the Democrats have to say about the crises facing working families? What is their full-throated explanation, pounded away day after day in the media, in the halls of Congress, and in town meetings throughout the country as to why tens of millions of workers, in the richest country on earth, are struggling to put food on the table or pay the rent? Where is the deeply felt outrage that we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care for all as a human right while insurance and drug companies make huge profits?
How do they explain supporting billions of dollars in military aid to the right-wing extremist government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which has created an unprecedented humanitarian disaster in Gaza that is causing massive malnutrition and starvation for thousands of children?
In my view, the Democrats lost this election because they ignored the justified anger of working class America and became the defenders of a rigged economic and political system.
This election was largely about class and change and the Democrats, in both cases, were often on the wrong side. As Jimmy Williams Jr., the president of the Painters Union, said, “The Democratic Party has continued to fail to prioritize a strong, working-class message that addresses issues that really matter to workers. The party did not make a positive case for why workers should vote for them, only that they were not Donald Trump. That’s not good enough anymore!”
As an Independent member of the US Senate, I caucus with the Democrats. In that capacity I have been proud to work with President Biden on one of the most ambitious pro-worker agendas in modern history.
We passed the American Rescue Plan to pull us out of the COVID-19 economic downturn; made historic investments in rebuilding our infrastructure and in transforming our energy system; began the process of rebuilding our manufacturing base; lowered the cost of prescription drugs and forgave student debt for five million Americans. Biden promised to be the most progressive president since FDR and, on domestic issues, he kept his word.
But, unlike FDR, these achievements are almost never discussed within the context of a grossly unfair economy that continues to fail ordinary Americans. Yes. In the past few years we have made some positive changes. We must acknowledge, however, that what we’ve done is nowhere near enough.
In 1936, in his second inaugural address, FDR spoke not only of his administration’s enormous achievements in combatting the Great Depression, but of the painful economic realities that millions of Americans were still experiencing.
The Democratic leadership must recognize that, in a rapidly changing economy, working families face an enormous amount of economic pain, anxiety and hopelessness — and they want change. The status quo is not working for them.
Roosevelt’s words remain relevant today: “I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day … I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children … I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.”
Of course, the world is today profoundly different than it was in 1936. We are not in an economic depression. Unemployment is relatively low. People are not facing starvation.
But the Democratic leadership must recognize that, in a rapidly changing economy, working families face an enormous amount of economic pain, anxiety and hopelessness — and they want change. The status quo is not working for them.
In politics you can’t fight something with nothing. The Democratic Party needs to determine which side it is on in the great economic struggle of our times, and it needs to provide a clear vision as to what it stands for. Either you stand with the powerful oligarchy of our country, or you stand with the working class. You can’t represent both.
While Democrats will be in the minority in the Senate and (probably) the House in the new Congress, they will still have the opportunity to bring forth a strong legislative agenda that addresses the needs of working families.
Either you stand with the powerful oligarchy of our country, or you stand with the working class. You can’t represent both.
If Republicans choose to vote those bills down, the American working class will learn quickly enough as to which party represents them, and which party represents corporate greed.
In my view, here are some of the working class priorities that Democrats must fight for:
- We must end Citizens United and stop billionaires from buying elections.
- We must raise the $7.25 federal minimum wage to a living wage — at least $17 an hour.
- We must pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act to make it easier for workers to form unions and end illegal union busting.
- We must protect senior citizens by increasing Social Security benefits and extending the solvency of the program by lifting the cap on taxable income.
- We must bring back defined benefit pension plans so that workers can retire with security.
- We must do what every other wealthy nation does and guarantee health care to all as a human right, beginning with the expansion of Medicare to cover home health care, dental, hearing, and vision.
- We must cut prescription drug prices in half, no more than is paid in other countries.
- We must provide guaranteed paid family and medical leave.
- We must guarantee equal pay for equal work.
- We must create fair trade policies that work for workers, not just corporate CEOs.
- We must build 3 million units of low income and affordable housing.
- We must make public colleges and universities tuition free, childcare affordable for all, and strengthen public education by paying teachers the salaries they deserve.
- We must adopt a progressive tax system which addresses the massive income and wealth inequality we are experiencing by demanding that the very wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes.
- We must save taxpayer dollars by ending the massive waste, fraud and abuse that exists in the Pentagon.
These are extremely popular ideas. The Democratic Party would do well to listen to the clear directive of American voters, and deliver. The simple fact is: if you stand with working people, they will stand with you. In my view, if Democrats deliver on an agenda like this, they can win back the working class of our country and the White House.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Tiny State of Maine, a Big Election Day Win Against Dark Money in Politics
"Our greatest hope is to restore people's faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board," said the chair of the campaign behind the measure likely bound for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nov 06, 2024
As billionaire-backed Republicans dominated U.S. elections on Tuesday, voters in Maine—among the top 10 states in terms of smallest populations—overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to limit political spending, an initiative that could reach the country's top court.
Maine Question 1 targets super political action committees (PACs), dark money groups that, for the most part, are barred from directly contributing to or coordinating with a candidate but can raise and spend unlimited amounts of funds.
Question 1 asked Mainers, "Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?"
WMTWreported earlier this year that "the $5,000 contributions cap would only apply to state races, not United States House or Senate races."
As of Wednesday afternoon, the measure had passed 531,573 to 186,707, or 74% to 26%, with 89% of the estimated vote reported, according toThe New York Times.
"When the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere."
"We're grateful to the Maine people for once again leading the way to help fix our broken political system," said Cara McCormick, chair of Maine Citizens to End Super PACs, which collected signatures to get the citizen-initiated measure on the ballot.
"The Maine people deserve a system that is not only free from corruption, but also free from the appearance of corruption," McCormick added. "Our greatest hope is to restore people's faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board."
The campaign highlighted that "some of America's leading constitutional law experts—Laurence Tribe, Lawrence Lessig, Neal Katyal, Al Alschuler, and others—have argued that Question 1 is the most immediate pathway to ending super PACs, the biggest source of dark money in elections."
Welcoming the measure's passage, Lessig declared Wednesday that "this is a great gift from Maine to democracy in America."
"We expect this initiative will be challenged," he explained. "But when the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere."
As Maine Morning Stardetailed Wednesday:
Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of "quid pro quo" corruption, essentially a favor for a favor. In the case of elections, if there is a risk someone could be making a donation to a candidate in exchange for a favor, only then can Congress regulate that contribution. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Campaign Act.
Three months later, in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that contributions to groups making independent expenditures can't corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. That decision essentially created the "super PAC," which can receive unlimited contributions but can’t contribute directly to candidates. Other lower federal and state courts followed suit, and the ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The editorial boards of both the Bangor Daily News and Portland Press Herald backed the ballot measure, with the latter writing last month that "ours would be the first state in the nation since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010 to move to limit contributions to PACs that can make independent expenditures."
"We believe that political spending has spiraled out of control, in many cases, and that the absence of any limit on PACs is inappropriate and leaves America's system of campaigning and voting vulnerable to the whims of bad actors," the board argued. "If Maine can play a leading role in bringing some order and fairness to political spending nationally, we should seize the chance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular