(MintPress) – As the dust settles from another whirlwind presidential election that saw candidates spending a collective $1 billion on elaborate national campaigns, citizens across the U.S. continue to push for comprehensive campaign finance reform to remove special interest money from American elections.
The Move to Amend coalition, a grassroots movement of citizens across the U.S., has successfully pushed Colorado and Montana to adopt resolutions declaring that “corporations are not people,” a clear condemnation of big money politics in Washington.
As a second term president, Barack Obama has the political space necessary to restore integrity to U.S. elections by empowering this burgeoning coalition and by calling for the Supreme Court to overturn the disastrous 2010 Citizens United decision — a ruling that has thoroughly corrupted the political process with big money contributions from corporations, labor unions and wealthy citizens.
The grassroots coalition of cities and states
In the latest victory for the movement, voters in Montana and Colorado decided to add amendments to their state constitutions Tuesday night, restricting political giving by corporations and wealthy individuals. The Montana amendment reads “that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights because they are not human beings.”
These decisions, while empowering for the movement, have no impact on curbing spending in national elections. However, in state and local elections, candidates will have to abide by laws governing donations to political campaigns. Critics charge that the new state amendments are largely symbolic as large sums of undisclosed “dark money” still flood local races.
Similarly, Coloradans approved a measure limiting the scope of political giving, a move supported by 73 percent of voters.
Earlier this summer Chicago, Ill. passed a city resolution condemning Citizens United, sending a clear message in opposition. Chicago, the most recent city to support the burgeoning grassroots movement, joins a bevy of states and other cities across the U.S. opposing big money spending in political campaigns.
With the recent additions of Montana and Colorado, the vocal opposition network also includes six states — California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont — which have all passed resolutions condemning Citizens United.
More than 260 cities and towns — including Albany, Boulder, Flagstaff, Minneapolis and Oakland among others — have passed similar resolutions. Other larger cities — including Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco — have passed “non-binding” resolutions in opposition to the Citizens United ruling.
Move to Amend coalition strengthens
These actions have been encouraged through the work of the Move to Amend coalition. Formed in 2009, “Move to Amend is a coalition of hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of individuals committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, not corporate interests.”
Thus far, more than 240,000 Americans have signed the online pledge calling for a constitutional amendment declaring that “corporations are not people and money is not a form of free speech.”
Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Americans, both Democrat and Republican, oppose the notion that corporations are people. Immediately following the SCOTUS decision, a Washington Post-ABC news poll conducted February 2010 found that 80 percent of Americans oppose the decision, with 65 percent saying they “strongly” oppose the decision.
Despite robust public call for publicly financed elections, there remains strong support for maintaining semi-secretive political action committees (PACs) in Washington and among the plutocratic elite.
Nowhere is this more evident than with the political spending of Sheldon Adelson, a conservative casino magnate who has spent millions of his own money financing Republican campaigns.
During the 2012 election cycle, Adelson gave a record $57 million to Republican candidates. While the majority of the candidates supported by Adelson did not win their elections, money in politics has an undeniable corrupting influence on what should be a free, transparent and, above all, democratic process.
Adelson may have lost big on Tuesday night, but his vast personal fortune of $20 billion ensures that he and other wealthy Americans will be buying political influence for the foreseeable future.
Additionally, the problem is compounded when both major parties take part in the same big money politics that favors corporate greed over public interest. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a minority voice speaking out against the runaway campaign spending, gave his summation of the problem saying, “Washington has become an auction house where policies go to the highest bidder.”
Consider Obama’s half-hearted attempts to “promote clean energy” in his first term. While the president has spoken about the need to “heal the planet” through green initiatives, Americans saw the proliferation of oil and gas drilling across the U.S., including the beginning of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Drilling in the Alaskan arctic has also been given the greenlight by the Obama administration despite vocal opposition from environmental groups. While three-quarters of oil lobbying dollars flow to Republican candidates, Democrats, including the president, receive millions of dollars from the powerful oil and gas lobby.
The future Supreme Court
Overcoming the corrupting influence of special interest money in politics may seem like an impossible hurdle to clear. However, the president now has the flexibility in his second term to fundamentally change politics as usual in Washington.
The Supreme Court, the institution that originally cast the fateful 5-4 decision in 2010, could also hold the key to future campaign finance reform.
With aging Supreme Court justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg (79), Antonin Scalia (76) and Anthony Kennedy (76) — looking toward retirement, Obama may have the chance to appoint up to three Supreme Court justices in his second term.
Even with a single new appointment, Obama could influence the composition of the court in a way that will influence future SCOTUS rulings on campaign finance reform.
The broader goal to create a constitutional amendment mandating publicly financed elections remains distant at this point. However, if the grassroots movement gains broader popular appeal, Congress may be pushed to restore clean elections and transparent electoral institutions in the U.S.