[mp3-jplayer tracks=”CounterSpin September 19 2014 Raed Jarrar and Robert Weissman @https://eadn-wc04-3257648.nxedge.io/audio/counterspin/CounterSpin091914.mp3″]
Download MP3 (right click)
This week on CounterSpin: “We have no choice,” CBS‘s Bob Schieffer told viewers, calling for US military attacks on the extremist group ISIS, because “this evil must be eradicated.” Though the shouts of warmongers may make them hard to hear, we do have choices–choices more likely to lead to long-term peace in Iraq and Syria than dropping bombs. We’ll hear from Raed Jarrar, policy impact coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee.
Also on the show: In response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, there’s a grassroots movement to amend the Constitution to try to curtail the influence of big money in politics. But it’s not getting much sympathy from the press: The AP says it’s an election year stunt, and pundits like George Will call it an attack on free speech. Robert Weissman of Public Citizen will join us to talk about the Democracy for All amendment.
LINKS:
–American Friends Service Committee
There are 2 competing camps on the issue of Citizens United? One camp is represented by Robert Weissman and Public Citizen. As you reported, it calls for an amendment to overturn Citizens United to reestablish the ability to regulate campaign contributions. Essentially, its goal is to return American polity back to 2010, the year Citizens United was handed down. The other camp is calling for a more expansive Constitutional Amendment that rejects this limited goal.
The thinking of the other camp, as expressed by the group Move to Amend, is that 2010 was not a political paradise for working people or our democracy. Since an amendment takes a lot of work and sacrifice, the question is, is it worth the work and sacrifice to turn the clock back to 2010? The answer is no, it is not. So what would be worth the effort?
Well, Citizens United involves 2 issues. One, whether the government has the right to limit campaign contributions and two, whether the government can bar or limit corporations from giving campaign contributions. On the first issue, the court said no, the government cannot limit campaign contributions because money is a form of speech and the government cannot limit this kind of speech. On the second issue, the court said the government cannot bar corporations from participating in the political process because corporations are people under the Constitution and the government cannot limit the rights of people to participate in the political process.
An amendment that challenged both these holdings would be worth the effort. If corporations were stripped of their “person” status, think of how the US political landscape could change. Imagine the end of corporate lobbying! Imagine the energy industry no longer able to oppose legislation to support a sustainable and renewable energy policy! Imagine a coal company no longer being able to sue a municipality that passes a law that prohibits mountain top removal. Imagine no ALEC. Imagine no corporate funded think tanks. Imagine universal healthcare because those who profit from the current healthcare system can’t use their money to influence policy. The list is almost endless.
The Move to Amend camp believes that the Public Citizen option is destine to fail for 2 reasons. The first is that not enough people will get behind an effort to turn back the political clock to 2010. The second is that the first option is nothing more than a political strategy that the Democrats will use to win elections from Republicans. The day after the Congressional vote, I got several solicitations from individual Democrats and the national Democratic Party asking for donations to combat the evil Republicans. (For Public Citizen it is also a great way to raise donations. If the amendment passes, they can say to their members look at what we’ve accomplished, give us money. If they lose, they can say look at how evil the Republicans are, give us money. Either way, their donations go up, even if the country suffers.)
The question I have for you is, which of these 2 proposed solutions is more in line with the values of Counterspin? If Counterspin is a radical, anti-corporate entity, then promoting the Public Citizen option is a betrayal of your principles because the Public Citizen option is neither radical or anti-corporate.
Since the interview is already done, I hope you will want to undue the damage you caused. You can do this by talking to someone from the second camp so your listeners who want to work for radical, anti-corporate change can do so. (I hope you know that everyone who signs up at the Public Citizens websites will be inundated with emails for donations. Trust me, this will not endear you to those listeners.)
I hope to see a segment on this issue by someone from the second camp, soon.