Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Yes, yes– we know, it was very strange. Notorious ex-Super lobbyist Jack Abramoff at Public Citizen?!  Don’t you remember what he had to say about Native Americans?! What’s the deal with him being a blogger at United Republic?! Is he promoting his book? Didn’t you read this article in Mother Jones? Yes. Sadly, yes. Not sure. Probably, though no copies here. And, of course.

However, as Public Citizen president Robert Weissman explained to the Washington Post: “We’re not inviting him here to give him a citizen of the year award.” Said Weissman, “He has credibility in explaining how lobbyists exert influence.” And, he also has some pretty radical ideas. For example, Abramoff thinks that to truly reform government anyone with pecuniary interest (from government contractors, to corporations lobbying for a tax break) should be prohibited from donating to campaigns. He also has aggressive views about the revolving door problem in Washington. While ethics laws were passed after his scandal requiring a “time off” period between when a congressional staffer could work on the Hill and take a job at a lobby shop– Abramoff thinks former staffers should be prohibited from working as lobbyists forever.

Abramoff said of those he lobbied on the Hill, “It seemed ninety-percent of staffers wanted to come work for me.” Their motivation was a better paying job. The motivation for politicians themselves to interact with and ultimately to do favors for lobbyists– time. He explained that the way to get a politician in your pocket was by bringing them a check for their campaign that could save them a few hours of dialing up potential donors and trying to raise the same amount the next afternoon.

When Abramoff entered our “temple of good government” he admitted, “If somebody told me a number of years ago that I’d be sitting in this room, in this building, talking to all of you and not have handcuffs on or something– I’d never have believed you.” He is still a conservative and there are lots of things with which we would never agree with him on. Nevertheless, as he pointed out when it comes to many money and politics issues, “It is not conservative to defend this system, this corruption.” And, as Peter Overby from NPR observed:

” . . . [Abramoff] posited that these reforms are something that conservatives and liberals can agree on. Nobody at Public Citizen disagreed.”

The Citizens United decision gave corporations unprecedented power to influence our elections. Sure corporations have been able to bully politicians for ages through lobbying and direct campaign giving, but never before has it been so easy for a corporation to impact who gets elected. Now, corporations can pump millions of dollars into either SuperPACs, non-profits, or trade associations that play in politics, and if they play their cards right it can be done entirely in secret.

Fortunately, many corporations are coming to realize that this type of spending might have repercussions and are changing their policies. So far, Twenty-four companies in the S&P100 do not make independent political donations, and fifty-seven companies either have board oversight or disclosure of political spending. These are steps in the right direction, but more needs to be done.money

On Jan. 9 the Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending (CAPS) sent out a letter to the 20 least transparent companies in the S&P500 asking them to disclose their contributions to SuperPACs, 527s, etc. in a timely fashion. They were met with complete silence.

Breaking their silence by ending secret corporate spending in politics is exactly what the Corporate Reform Coalition is all about. The coalition is made up of institutional investors, public officials, academics and good governance groups working to reign in corporate spending. The coalition works to protect shareholders by promoting legislation, regulatory action and company policy changes around political spending. After all, in a publicly traded company the money belongs to shareholders, and so why shouldn’t they know how it’s being spent? What if you personally donated $20 to a campaign only to find that your 401k is linked to a company that donated $200,000 to the other guy? That’s not what your money was there to do, it’s not what you want your money to do, but hey, Corporation X didn’t ask you.

Continue Reading

"Robert Weissman, Public Citizen president"President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign took the unfortunate step last night of announcing it would support the Super PAC Priorities USA. The campaign’s unwillingness to disarm in the face of an expected rash of attack ads from secretive and unaccountable Republican-leading Super PACs and independent organizations is understandable, but the president’s engagement in the Super PAC arms race virtually ensures we will witness the nastiest campaign in memory. Even more disturbingly, it transfers still more power and influence to the miniscule coterie of super-wealthy individuals and corporations who dominate funding of the Super PACs and independent organizations.

We are now in the midst of a Citizens United-induced democracy death spiral. Public Citizen supports a range of measures – including public financing of elections, disclosure, requirements for shareholder approval of corporate election spending and prohibitions on election spending by lobbyists and government contractors – to mitigate the damage from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling holding that corporations can spend whatever they want to influence election outcomes, but rescuing our democracy will require that Citizens United be overturned by a constitutional amendment.

We are very pleased that Obama’s campaign has announced support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and authorize limits on campaign spending.*

A fast-growing nationwide movement is rising to demand a constitutional amendment and rescue our democracy from capture by narrow corporate and super-wealthy interests. All elected officials and those seeking elected office should now be challenged: With the Citizens United wreckage apparent – and the certainty that things are going to get much worse in Election – do they support a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision? And those who do support an amendment must be challenged to advocate for it aggressively. Expect an increasingly outraged and mobilized public to demand exactly that.

Continue Reading

Stunning Statistics of the Week:

  • 1626.7 percent: The percentage by which the volume of ads paid for by outside groups has increased since the 2008 presidential race
  • 1281.8 percent: The percentage by which outside group spending on ads has increased since the 2008 presidential race

Senate bans congressional insider trading; House vote is next
Congressional insider trading is one step closer to being"Public Citizen Money and Democracy" banned. The U.S. Senate this week approved a bill to ban it; now it heads to the U.S. House of Representatives. President Barack Obama says he will sign it. The bill has been in the works for years but gained traction recently when “60 Minutes” highlighted the need for it. Public Citizen, which has pushed for the measure for years, is urging its passage. Tell Congress to pass the STOCK Act.

Super PAC reports are in to the FEC
Jan. 31 marked the deadline for many Super PACs to tell the Federal Election Commission who their donors are. (A caveat: Some reported getting money from generic-sounding corporations housed at a P.O. box, so the information is not complete.) What did we learn? That the casino mogul who is pouring money into a pro-Newt Gingrich group gave five times more than all other donors to Gingrich’s Super PAC combined. And that millionaires and billionaires are having a huge amount of sway over the presidential election process. And that the Karl Rove-backed groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS raised $51 million last year.

Continue Reading

Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert project monitors the spread of commercial culture, fighting back against its expansion into evermore spheres of our lives. As we track tales of governors selling naming rights to highways and bridges and online games pushing junk food on children, a perennial story we encounter is that of increasing commercialism in our public schools. Not a week goes by without at least a handful of stories of school districts selling students short by allowing (or considering allowing) advertising on their campuses, whether on lockers, school buses, cafeteria trays and menus, sports fields, or right in the classroom.

With massive state budget cuts, school districts are facing tough times – there’s no doubt about it. So when they claim that allowing school advertising will help them manage their budget shortfalls, many parents and community members believe that, distasteful as advertising to kids may be, such measures might just be worth it. But is it? Our just-released report, School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues, debunks these claims, highlighting the miniscule revenue that these programs actually bring in.

How much money are school districts bringing in? Houston Independent School District (HISD), the seventh-largest in the country, has a total budget of $1.58 billion for 2011-2012. In 2010-2011, HISD raised only $62,250 from a combination of signage, scoreboards and school bus advertising. That’s less than 0.01 percent of its budget – and a far cry from the $100 million in cuts the district faced last year.  Also in Houston, Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District, the eleventh-largest district in the country, raised only 0.03 percent of its annual budget through in-school advertising. And in Florida, Orange County Public Schools has allowed advertising from Pizza Hut, the U.S. Army, Buffalo Wild Wings and other, raising just 0.02 percent of its annual operating budget.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.