Americans Unchained: Guns, Government and Justice

I’m starting to understand why there are 311 million Americans and 310 million guns in America. It’s not just about hunting or collecting.

It’s about self-defense – not against street crime, which has dropped like a rock over the last two decades, but against a world that seems to have run amok, and against which the government frequently seems inept or powerless.

I’m not just talking about 9/11 – though I’m willing to bet that gun sales spiked after our country, with all its military might and a $300 billion defense budget, proved defenseless against nineteen extremists with box cutters. Consider how Washington and Wall Street connived to betray America under the guise of “deregulation,” leaving our homes, jobs, and life savings at the mercy of greed-driven speculation. It will take years for most Americans to recover what they lost since 2008 – many never will. The U.S. government proved quite adept at arranging the immediate rescue of the Money Industry; but huge numbers of our citizenry are stuck in the equivalent of the New Orleans Superdome after Hurricane Katrina – left to fend for themselves.

Name a major disaster and then connect the dots, as I have attempted previously: the Enron/California Energy Crisis Hoax, 9/11, Katrina, the mass shootings by deranged loners who somehow “fall through the cracks” till they slaughter our loved ones. Then add the nation’s gravely inadequate response to global warming – the most dangerous and disruptive threat to our security on the horizon. A fearful pattern of incompetence emerges.

And so, if our government cannot protect us, we will protect ourselves ­– or at least try to, as if putting weapons in cockpits or classrooms is going to work.

A dramatic decline in public confidence in the government is clearly underway. 81% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, according to the Gallup polling organization. That’s actually an improvement over its all-time worst score of 90% last August, but hardly anything the Founders would be proud of. President Obama is also doing better, but his disapproval rating has soared from 15% in January 2009 to 43% a few days ago.

These numbers change when Americans are asked to assess the presidency and Congress as institutions in the abstract. The former scored a 43% disapproval rating – nearly identical to the current occupant’s. But only 65% of Americans disapproved of the legislative branch – fifteen points lower than the disapproval rate for the current Congress.

Rating the federal government as a whole, 63% of Americans say they are dissatisfied.

That the executive and legislative branches are held in low esteem is not news, and being the so-called “political” branches, not particularly surprising.

More important is the ranking of the branch of government whose single job is to maintain the basic software of the U.S. operating system – our laws. These are the principles, originating in the Constitution, by which democracy and its citizens are supposed to abide.  They are administered by the judicial branch, the one branch of government structured to be impervious to political pressure, including the influence of money.

Trust in the legal system is higher than either the executive or legislative branches, Gallup researchers report, but a solid third of all Americans disapprove of the judicial branch. The good news is that Americans’ view of the courts hasn’t changed much since 1973.

By some objective measures, however, America’s once vaunted system of laws fares poorly with respect to other socio-economically similar nations. The World Justice Project’s annual “Rule of Law Index” places the U.S. nineteenth out of twenty-nine countries, principally because of wealth-based disparities in Americans’ access to the legal system.

The judicial branch faces four serious challenges that, unless abated, are going to further undermine public confidence – not just in the judiciary, but also in government and democracy.

First is the increasingly politicized conduct of the courts themselves.

In 2000, the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court stopped the vote count process in Florida and awarded the election to George Bush. In 2011, the Republican majority on the high court ruled that those “arbitration clauses” inserted in the fine print of virtually every contract between a giant corporation and consumers must be enforced to deny people their right to sue a company in court. And then of course there is the infamous Citizens United case, in which the Republican majority ruled that injecting money into elections to influence the outcome is a form of free speech, and that corporations exercising that right are protected by the First Amendment. In that single decision, the Court disenfranchised the vast majority of Americans who cannot hire their own lobbyist or fund the election of a friendly politician.

Finally, most Americans are aware that Chief Justice Roberts broke with his Republican colleagues to uphold federal health care reform last year. What they’re not aware of is this: buried in the legalese of that decision, Justice Roberts opened the door to a change in constitutional jurisprudence that would roll back American law to the standards in effect in 1905, when the Supreme Court struck down congressional workplace and other reforms. Consistently favoring corporations over people is not just bad law, it’s bad for the credibility of the court.

And it’s not just the Supreme Court.  The overtly political and severely partisan appointments process for federal judges leads to decisions based on ideology rather than law, as the New York Times, surveying several recent books, reports.

Second, special interests are increasingly trying to corrupt judicial elections, a phenomenon that I’ve noted grew to serious proportions last year as a result of the Citizens United decision. Business groups seeking favorable treatment are challenging the judges who have ruled against them, or might do so in the future. John Grisham’s novel “The Appeal” is thinly veiled fact; the searing documentary “Hot Coffee” exposes the true story of how several state supreme court justices were ousted by business lobbyists. Far from being embarrassed by the assault on judicial impartiality, no less an institution than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is leading the charge along with other business funded groups. The taxpayer-subsidized organizations’ two-step system is to first target state court systems based on whether they are pro-business or pro-consumer. A Chamber collaborator is slightly less nuanced: it calls these courts “judicial hellholes,” a term it has copyrighted. Then the groups help organize the political campaigns against the judges, replacing them with candidates who will rule in favor of big-business. An estimated $30 million was spent on TV ads alone in 2012 judicial elections. Once judges get sucked into the machinery of electoral campaigns, Americans will doubt their impartiality.

Third, the courts have approved crummy settlements in numerous lawsuits – often brought by government agencies – citing banks for unlawful foreclosure practices, illegal manipulation of interests rates, and a host of other multi-billion dollar heists and scams of breathtaking audacity connected to the financial debacle. My colleague Marty Berg has documented just a few of the many examples of settlements that leave the victims with next to nothing, while the banks and their fat cat execs get off with a slap on the wrist... or even a kiss on the lips. It’s not the courts’ fault that federal prosecutors can’t seem to throw a net around the high-level white-collar crooks that ran our economy into a ditch and destroyed so many people’s lives. But the courts do have the responsibility to reject the vacuous deals that benefit only the perps and their political friends. With the few notable exceptions of federal judges insisting on tougher terms, the vast majority of these sweetheart settlements are rubber-stamped.

Fourth, the court systems in many states have sustained heavy collateral damage from the Wall Street Financial Debacle of 2008. In California, budget deficits have led to massive cuts in funding for the courts; some courtrooms have closed; judges have retired; and parties now have to pay for their own court reporters to record the proceedings.  It is not mere inconvenience that concerns lawyers here. “Justice is now being rationed in our state,” Patrick Kelly, the President of the California State Bar said. He told the Los Angeles Daily Journal: “The public….[is] used to a court system that handles all these issues, child support obligations, contract disputes. What is going to happen when the court system can no longer take care of that? … There is a potential [for] serious degeneration of civil responsibility in California.”

By applying the rule of law, courts play a critical role in preserving American ideals of fairness, competition and impartial justice. John Adams, who helped Jefferson draft the Declaration of Independence and later became the second president of the United States, said this of the Seventh Amendment: “without the right to trial by jury we have no way to keep us from being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, fed like swine and clothed like hounds.”

The presence of a million more guns than people in this country is an alarming plebiscite on the nation’s confidence in the rule of law. If Americans lose faith in the courts as they have with other democratic institutions, disputes that would otherwise be settled by law will be settled by force. Take a look at the chaos and devastation now underway in countries where the only law that governs is the law of the jungle.

Citizens United / Congress / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 01/23/2013

Identity Theft in the Matrix

Something weird occurred on my TV when I happened to catch a few minutes of the Madrid Tennis Open on Sunday. Whatever technology these stadiums use to provide constantly changing television advertisements along the sides of the court wasn’t working too well. Some of the furniture on the clay itself seemed to be dissociating on an atomic level. A chair looked as if it was disappearing in a shimmering blue cloud. It was like that moment in the movie The Matrix when the reality of the unreality becomes apparent to Neo – a house cat vanishes for a split second, then reappears.

The technical snafu made the match pretty hard to watch, so I reverted to the New York Times, where columnist Thomas Friedman happened to be expressing astonishment at the profound influence of corporate marketing values on American society. Few have written more enthusiastically about the spread of capitalism worldwide than Friedman, so it was surprising to hear him say he “had no idea” that famous authors, revered sports players and even public institutions have all bartered their identities for corporate cash.

Just then, Roger Federer won the match. “Watch this,” my wife said in a moment.  “He’s going to reach into his gym bag and pull out an expensive watch, so he’s wearing it when he gets the award.” Sure enough, with a bemused grin – I took it to be a guilty “ok, I have to do this” sort of look – Federer theatrically slipped his sweaty hand into the bag and slowly pulled out a gleaming Rolex, which he then slid onto his wrist.

I’m no slouch when it comes to tracking the commodification of our culture – a Ralph Nader spin-off, Commercial Alert, has been quietly raising the issue for years – but I’d never witnessed someone of Federer’s stature actually engage in a corporate sponsorship ritual, one which happens to be well known to tennis fans.

The impact of celebrity endorsements and the promotion of products in TV shows and films is more than just an idle curiosity. For many years, Americans were urged to close the gap between the lifestyle they aspired to – as displayed in the entertainment media – and the economic reality of their lives by borrowing on their homes and credit cards. This masked a gaping and painfully growing chasm that is now the topic of conversation only because Wall Street flushed the toilet on our economy a few years back.  Where once you too might have been able to pull a beautiful watch out of your duffel courtesy of a JP Morgan Chase credit card, that’s no longer possible for many.

Even more insidious than dictating our personal dreams and values is the corporate capture of our political identities. In that sense, the United States Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Citizens United symbolically acknowledges what had long ago become the Golden Rule of American democracy: those who have the gold, rule. By bestowing human rights upon corporate entities, and equating spending money to buy elections with freedom of speech, Citizens United locked in a system of legalized bribery that locks most Americans out of the electoral process that is our birthright.

Sure, we still have the right to vote. But the choices we are offered are usually determined by a political establishment mostly dominated by corporate money and a vast apparatus of election consultants, public relations hacks and lobbyists.

Every corporate dollar spent on candidates and elections pays an enormous return on the investment.  The Money Industry gave $5 billion to federal officials in the ten years leading up to the 2008 financial debacle, as we documentedin 2009 (PDF). The result: “bipartisan” decisions by lawmakers and the executive branch stripping away decades of legislation designed to protect America against lunatic speculation. Liberated, Wall Street gambled till it lost everything. Cost to American taxpayers: hundreds of trillions of dollars in bailouts, lost jobs, battered businesses, devastated communities – a Depression. Heads they win, tales you lose.

A recent study by academics at the University of Kansas examined how a particular federal tax break for multinational corporations became law, and what happened after that. They calculated that for every $1 spent on lobbying in favor of the tax break, the companies were spared $220 in taxes – a return of 22,000%.

Last week’s revelation that JP Morgan Chase had lost $2 billion through trading practices that are supposed to be illegal under the financial reform law passed by Congress in 2010 begged the question: how did they get away with it? Answer: JP Morgan Chase spent millions on lobbyists whose job was to weaken the law, and delay its implementation. The current draft of the federal regulations required to enforce a key provision of the law is a 298-page monstrosity; thanks to JP Morgan’s lawyers, it’s loaded with political booby traps and sabotaging IEDs that will utterly neuter the law, if it ever takes effect.

Mission accomplished.

With staggering results like these, it’s no wonder that the corruption of American politics is now an industry itself. The Times estimates its size at $6 billion a year, and reports that a series of mergers and acquisitions is creating a corporate lobbying conglomerate where the best and brightest – including retiring members of Congress – alight.

This is the Invisible Government that used to be the topic of novelists and conspiracy theorists. In the celebrity-driven entertainment Matrix, it’s easy to miss if you aren’t looking around and wondering what’s going on.

 

Harvey Column / Paul Volcker / Supreme Court / Too Big To Fail - 05/15/2012

Will the Supreme Court Split the Difference on Health Care and Immigration?

"The High Court" (c) Charles Bragg

Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear one of many lawsuits by conservative officials challenging the new federal health care reform law championed by President Obama. At the time, you will recall, very few observers thought there was a serious chance that the high court would invalidate the legislation.

I was among them –until three weeks later, when the Supreme Court announced it would hear the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, which bars illegal immigrants from trying to get a job and gives state cops the power to arrest people suspected of being illegal immigrants. The Obama Administration argues the Arizona law interferes with federal authority to control the nation’s borders.

When I heard that the Court took the immigration case, I was pretty sure I saw a trade-off in the works.

Here’s how I reckoned it: extreme conservatives loathe universal health care (and the President) and want to stop it now, before it takes effect and becomes one of those successful federal programs, like Social Security, that becomes wildly popular and hence impossible to privatize or repeal.  Liberals, by contrast, aren’t crazy about the sorely compromised product that President Obama signed, but they believe that everybody should receive the health care they need, and that the government ought to at least mandate fair rules in the marketplace. Overturning the new law would set liberals ablaze, and give President Obama a powerful campaign issue – activist judges – in the Fall.

On immigration, many liberals are uncomfortable with the harsh and arguably unconstitutional provisions of Arizona’s law. And they remember how the “state’s rights” movement was once a thinly veiled euphemism for maintaining state laws that discriminated against African Americans. But conservatives strongly support the right of Arizona to take extraordinary measures to stop illegal immigration. Overturning the Arizona statute would anger the conservative base.

See where I’m going here?

By taking both cases within a few weeks of each other, the Republican majority on the Supreme Court gave itself the kind of political cushion it didn’t have when it handed the presidency to George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore.  The high court can grant conservatives the massive victory they seek by invalidating federal health care reform, and then disappoint them by ruling in favor of the federal government in the Arizona case.

“See! Impartial!” the pundits will trumpet;  “this proves that Supreme Court ‘judges are like umpires,’” as now Chief Justice John Roberts put it during his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill in 2005.  “Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules,” he said at the time, and it sounded reassuring.

“Split the difference” maneuvering is a common feature in American politics. I've seen it in action ever since I first worked on Capitol Hill in the Seventies. The lawmaker votes against a bill – disappointing some – only to vote for a different bill a few days later, pleasing them. All is forgiven, or maybe not; either way, it's portrayed as proof of "independence": “If both sides are mad at me,” the politicians’ old saw goes, “I must be doing something right.”

That may fool some of the people some of the time, but such tactical machinations are of course completely improper in the judicial branch, where justice is supposed to be blind and decisions made based on the merits of the case, not whether “the base” will be thrilled or disappointed, or both.

As a lifelong student of the law, I hope I’m wrong about the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who devote their lives to justice, as most lawyers one way or another must, can only rue the public’s distrust of the judicial process.

That’s growing, and no wonder. Some conservatives indiscriminately berate “judicial activists” on the bench. Meanwhile, corporations spend increasingly vast sums of money belittling judges, juries and lawyers in the quest to pass legislation repealing the average American’s right to hold wrongdoers accountable in a court, which they call "tort reform."

And in a little noticed part of its infamous Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court granted corporations the First Amendment right to campaign for or against judges as if they were politicians. Super PACs are now targeting justices whose rulings aren’t pro-business enough – as if “pro-business” is a constitutional imperative unto itself.

I checked the Constitution – it’s not in there.

Unfortunately, what’s transpired since last winter gives me little reason to believe that the current Supreme Court will put respect for precedent over politics. During three days of hearings last month, the notion that the Supreme Court would invalidate the federal health care law went from being a right wing fantasy to a possible, even likely, outcome based on the questions and comments of the Republican justices.

In fact, after the hearing on the immigration law last week, it looked to many like the Supreme Court was prepared to rule in favor of Arizona.

The Conventional Wisdom now has the Court dumping heath care reform and upholding the immigration controls, making it a clean sweep for the anti-federal government conservatives. After all, members of the Supreme Court cannot be held accountable for their actions, short of impeachment. So why would they care whether they look like they’re “balanced”?

So much for my theory.

On the other hand, a political version of one of the laws of quantum physics may be at work on the Court at this very moment. The Heisenberg Principle posits that the mere observation of atomic particles changes their course. Since its astounding determination that the Constitution protects corporate money, the Supreme Court has come under a nearly unprecedented degree of criticism. Perhaps the public scrutiny is beginning to have an effect.

At least two members of the Court itself have said they want to reconsider it (PDF). Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “swing vote” on the bench, may end up unwilling to join in a wholesale re-engineering of constitutional law.  Some experts suggest that Chief “Umpire” John Roberts might be sensitive to how history will view his stewardship of the institution.

So I still wouldn’t be surprised to see a “split the difference” strategy play out in June, when the Supreme Court is expected to issue its decisions on both cases, just five months from the election.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 04/30/2012

Obama to Corporate Persons: And This is How You Thank Me?

Poor President Obama. Confronted with an economic catastrophe when he took office, he made a decision – well documented here and here, for example – to save the financial industry from its own misdeeds, foregoing the opportunity to obtain from the Wall Street CEOs any kind of quid pro quo for beleaguered taxpayers and homeowners. And what does he get in return?

Wall Street contributions to the President’s re-election campaign are down 68%, reports the New York Times.

There’s also been a drop in financial support from some of those who were all-in to elect him in 2008.  Some big-name progressive donors, dismayed by the President’s inability to hold the line on everything from foreclosures to a public health care option (which likely would have survived the Supreme Court’s widely expected invalidation of the health care reform law), are sitting this one out – at least for the moment.

Unfortunately, the worst is yet to come for the President, courtesy of the same Supreme Court. Freed from campaign spending restrictions by the court’s ruling in Citizens United, the highly-skilled right wing corporate apparatus is aiming to raise $500 million in “super PAC” money to beat Obama. Pro-Romney super PACs have already out-raised those supporting the President by a factor of eight.

This comes as no surprise to those familiar with the way big business behaves in public.

If corporations are people, as the Republican majority on the Supreme Court says, then the defining trait of the modern corporate personality is ingratitude. When all the federal bailout programs are totaled up (including indirect assistance like being able to borrow taxpayer money at super-low interest rates), Wall Street and many other firms got somewhere around $14 trillion in financial aid from Washington.

Had that money been put in the hands of the American people, it could have paid off every mortgage, credit card and car loan in the United States.

Like President Obama, we are still waiting for our thank you note from corporate America.

Instead, we get surging credit card interest rates, skyrocketing gas prices, outrageous health insurance premium increases and, adding insult to those injuries, the imposition of undisclosed inflated fees by cell phone, airline and other companies for the dishonest purpose of charging hapless consumers more than the advertised price.

Hence the need for parental supervision of corporate persons, also known as "regulation."

Corporate money had already eroded the democratic process under the patchwork of campaign finance laws that pre-dated Citizens United. Our report, “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America” (PDF) gets right to the bottom line. Between 1998 and 2008, Wall Street invested $5 billion in Washington, a combination of money for lobbying and campaign contributions that won deregulation and other policy decisions that enabled the Money Industry to do as it pleased. The ensuing orgy of unbridled speculation came to a halt in 2008 when the big banks threatened to shut down the system unless they got trillions of dollars in loans, tax breaks and other taxpayer bailouts.

But by deregulating corporate money in Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court has empowered a crime wave of corporate influence peddling that will dwarf anything this country has ever seen.

Take, for example, Sacramento – California's integrity-free zone.

$ A half-decade-long battle to force health insurance companies to open their books and prove they need rate increases was crushed by industry lobbyists, forcing angry consumers to mount a ballot measure of their own.

$ A package of bills backed by the state’s Attorney General to prevent banks from abusing the home foreclosure process – dubbed the “Homeowners Bill of Rights” – has been blocked by the banking industry, which spent over $70 million on lobbyists and lawmakers in California between 2007 and 2011.

$ A bill that will deregulate telephone service, sponsored by the state’s two biggest phone companies, AT&T and Verizon, is sailing through the state legislature, much as electricity deregulation did in 1998 – to disastrous consequences for California taxpayers.

Once upon a time, average citizens might have had a voice in these policy debates.  Now that corporate America is locked and loaded, we don't stand a chance.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / President Barack Obama / Supreme Court - 04/23/2012

Why the Supreme Court Wants to Kill Universal Health Care

Name the most popular federal program of all time, and you’ll understand why the Republican Supreme Court wants to kill health care reform before it gets going in 2014.

It’s Social Security, of course. Part of FDR’s New Deal, Congress enacted it in 1935 to provide insurance against the vicissitudes of old age, poverty and unemployment, all of which were made more horrific by the Great Depression.

Social Security retirement benefits are based on an individual mandate, just like the new health care law is. Workers and employers are required to pay taxes into the system now, to cover them later. You can’t have a solvent health or retirement insurance program if participation is voluntary, because no one will contribute until they need the benefits – and then they can’t pay for them, as I’ve noted. Social Security, like the health care law, is a universal system - everyone has to be part of it – both getting the benefits and paying for its cost.

Due to a limited grasp of their own history, most Americans don’t realize how similar today's campaign against universal health care is to the one waged against Social Security.

Republican lawmakers bitterly opposed (PDF) FDR’s measure – and still do, though these days they cloak their hostility behind the hysterical and unfounded argument that Social Security is about to go bankrupt. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan claimed in 2004 that retirement benefits had to be cut and the system “privatized” or the nation would face an economic disaster (it did four years later, thanks not to Social Security but to Greenspan’s policies).  The Bush Administration concocted a plan to turn over Social Security proceeds to Wall Street, which it claimed would do a better job of investing people’s retirement savings.  Had it succeeded, most of that money would have been lost in the financial crash of 2008.

But the conservatives’ attempts to demolish Social Security have consistently failed. Why? Because Social Security works. Americans support it by huge margins – even Republicans.

Hence the vehemence of the attack on the health care law now. The anti-government forces realize that once Americans begin to receive the benefits of universal health care – no denials for pre-existing conditions, no medical underwriting, no caps on benefits – they won’t want to give them up.

That’s not all.  Under the law passed by Congress, the insurance industry stands to gain the most from the mandate that all Americans buy health insurance. But the experts understand that the program will end up being too expensive – in most states, private insurance companies are going to be able to raise their rates at will.  If this doesn’t kill universal care, it will eventually lead to a single public system just like Social Security.

Last week’s spectacle at the Supreme Court – three days of “hearings,” with some lawyers appointed by the Court itself to argue positions no party had taken – looked more like a political ambush by a legislative body than the supposedly chaste pursuit of constitutional principles.  It’s important to remember that an unelected majority of the U.S. Supreme Court almost nipped Social Security in the bud 75 years ago. Pro-industry conservatives on the Court consistently rejected FDR’s proposals to provide Americans relief from the New Deal, as I explained recently.  The Social Security law was considered in danger by FDR’s advisors. Criticism of the Supreme Court became widespread, and FDR began to prepare a plan to add more justices to the nine serving on the high court. Unwilling to provoke a constitutional confrontation that would sully the independence of the judicial branch, the Supreme Court backed down, and upheld the law.

It’s difficult to discern any similar hesitation by the current majority of the Supreme Court, with five of its nine members increasingly unabashed ideologues willing to rewrite the Constitution. Think about the Court’s decision to interfere with the Florida vote count and award the 2000 election to George Bush. Consider its 2011 decision in Concepcion v. AT&T, where five Republican appointees determined that “arbitration clauses” inserted in the fine print of virtually every contract between a giant corporation and consumers can rob people of their right to their day in court.  And then there’s the infamous 2010 Citizens United case, in which the five ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of free speech, protected by the First Amendment. In one fell swoop, the Court disenfranchised the vast majority of Americans who cannot hire their own lobbyist or fund the election of a friendly politician.

On the other hand, yesterday President Obama sent the politicians on the high court a powerfully worded message. Briefly channeling FDR, he said: “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Much is at stake here – more than health care reform itself. Public confidence in government is at record lows. As the financial crash of 2008 confirmed, money has corrupted the electoral process; the wealthy and powerful dictate public policy. The judiciary used to be the only branch of government in which a citizen could take on any person or corporation and be accorded equal stature. When Americans loses their confidence in the integrity of the courts, what is left?

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 04/03/2012

The Health Care Games

Like the Hunger Games, in which leaders of the 1% connive to rig a contest so that a charismatic representative of the 99% is defeated, there’s lots of intrigue behind the US Supreme Court hearings on the federal health care law that begin today.

The ostensible issue before the high court is whether the universal health care system established by Congress in 2010 is constitutional. Like the systems in most other developed nations, that law requires all Americans to be covered – whether through their employer or by purchasing it directly. Now this is just plain arithmetic: you can’t have a solvent universal care program if participation is voluntary, because the young and healthy won’t bother to pitch in until they get sick, leaving the older and less healthy to cover most of the cost. Universal means everyone has to be part of it – both getting the medical benefits and paying for its cost.  Today, taxpayers end up bailing out people who don’t buy insurance and then get sick or in an accident.

But the corporate funded US Chamber of Commerce and other right wing entities, plus anti-government foes (including most of the Republicans candidates who want to run the government), argue it was unconstitutional for Congress to order everyone to pay for health insurance. My problem with that part of the law – known as the "individual mandate" – is that you have to buy the insurance from private insurance companies, and there is no limit on what they can charge you. That’s gotta be fixed, and a campaign is underway to do that in California. As everyone knows, however, Obama lifted his health care proposal from the law that Mitt Romney, then Governor of Massachusetts, enacted there in 2006. So its obvious that a big part of why the corporate Republican establishment opposes the law is that it was backed by a Democrat – Obama – and they don’t want him or any other elected Democrat to be able to claim any political victories.

There’s much more to the Supreme Court case than crass party politics, in any case. Many on the corporate right are hoping the US Supreme Court will issue a sweeping decision like they did in Citizens United, this time ratcheting back Congress’s regulatory authority across the board and therefore bolstering the power of big corporations – just as Citizens United did, in the guise of granting corporations a new right to corrupt elections under the First Amendment.

A decision limiting Congress’s power to regulate pollution would be a huge win for chemical manufacturers; drug and tobacco companies want to escape the Food and Drug Administration’s safety requirements; Wall Street wants taxpayer bailouts with no strings attached.  As I wrote a few weeks ago, the powerful elites in this nation think that the health care case is the Supreme Court’s best opportunity in decades to roll back constitutional rights to the deregulated era of excess that led to the First Great Depression eighty years ago. This will be done in the name of protecting Americans against the intrusion of government in their lives.

In the Hunger Games, the hundred thousand wealthiest people in “Panem” gather in their Capitol to watch as twenty-four randomly selected citizens fight each other to death. This is a yearly penance, we are told, imposed by the wealthy in response to an earlier, unsuccessful revolt by the 99%. The Games provide an excuse for a non-stop party for the powerful – like Mardi Gras only with unimaginable excess.  The citizens – known as “Tributes” – come two each from all twelve “Districts” in the country. Those Districts looked a lot like many parts of the United States. People trudge to poor-paying jobs and live in flimsy structures one step up from homelessness. They shop at flea markets where barter is common. They catch their own food. They help each other out because the Capitol has long since abandoned them.

There are other eerie similarities and ironies. In the Hunger Games, the entire game area is wired with cameras and the contest is continuously broadcast to the nation on enormous screens. This quickly turns to the disadvantage of the 1% in the Capitol, because the 99% become inspired by watching the heroine’s courage and humanity and start to rebel anew.  This is a lesson our Supreme Court has already learned: you can forget about seeing any of its hearings on the health care law on a screen of any size. Watching the Justices and corporate lawyers rework the Constitution into a weapon of the mighty might anger some Americans. So the Supreme Court has banned any video… but says it will release audio at the end of each day’s hearing.

It’s clear from the movie that the elites have powerful medicines that can instantly eliminate infections and heal wounds, but residents of the Districts have never seen that kind of health care. I guess the Panem Chamber of Commerce would argue that these citizens are fortunate to be “free from government interference in their lives.”

Citizens United / Congress / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 03/25/2012

Citizens United Was Not the First (And May Not Be the Last)

Citizens United is hardly the first time that five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have granted corporations special rights under the Constitution. In fact, you can chart the twists and turns in the politics of our country by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution’s protection of big business.

During the First Gilded Age, when utility and railroad companies accreted enormous political power, the nation’s high court routinely blocked progressive reforms on the ground that they interfered with “freedom of contract.” The era is known by its most controversial decision, Lochner vs. New York, in 1905. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law that barred bakers from being forced to work more than ten hours a day.  The Court relied on a creative interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which commands “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

Just as Citizens United equates money with freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the five to four majority of the Supreme Court in Lochner equated “liberty” with the “right” of a company to impose onerous and often dangerous working conditions on men, women and children. This judicial policy of deregulation combined with speculation and greed to produce the Great Depression. But President Roosevelt’s efforts to rescue the nation from the financial abysss were blocked by the Supreme Court, until Roosevelt provoked a constitutional crisis by proposing to add additional justices to the Supreme Court (one for every justice over seventy years old!) to create a majority that would support his legislation. In effect, FDR chose to fight politics on the high court with more politics. Having impaired the Court’s integrity and independence, the pro-big business Justices backed down, permitting New Deal legislation to take effect. Twenty years later, the Supreme Court acknowledged that, “the day is gone when this court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.”

Though the Supreme Court ultimately stopped second-guessing the policies enacted by the Legislative Branch under the guise of interpreting the Constitution, its decision in Citizens United reflects an increasingly politicized Supreme Court. And what goes around, comes around. Even as Citizens United has ignited a grassroots rebellion and calls for a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court's damage to our democracy, scholars and pundits on the corporate-funded right are promoting the resurrection of Lochner.  The legal attack on the 2010 federal health care reform can be seen as one manifestation of a revived challenge to the power of government to regulate industry.  We’ll see how this plays out with the current majority of the Supreme Court when they begin to hear arguments against universal health care later this month.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 03/12/2012

Capital Punishment by Corporate Proxy

There are two kinds of death penalty in this country. One of them I bet you’ve never really thought about.

First there’s the death penalty imposed by the state for particularly heinous crimes. This one’s been churning for decades – we all know about it, and many of us have strong feelings about it. In 1978, for example, California voters passed an initiative authorizing capital punishment for an expanded list of crimes. A few days ago, a coalition of organizations announced they had collected enough signatures to put a measure on the November ballot that would ban the death penalty in California.  Make no mistake: this is one of those social issues that inspire passions of biblical proportions. Whichever way voters go on this, it’ll be an intense, high visibility campaign... over the fate of 719 people on California's Death Row. In 2011, California executed two people; three in 2010.

Then there’s the death penalty almost nobody ever mentions, but claims many more victims – all of them innocent.

I’m talking about the one carried out on a daily basis by corporations that put profits over people’s lives. Consider the death toll that results when insurance companies refuse to sell a health insurance policy at a reasonable price. A study by Harvard researchers concludes that nearly 45,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance and go without the care they need. About 5,300 of those are in California – more than the number of homicides and suicides in the state combined.

Deaths due to malpractice by medical personnel in hospitals alone are estimated at 195,000 annually.

Water, air and soil pollution is reported to be responsible for forty percent of all deaths worldwide.

Most of the corporate policies reflected in these statistics on fatalities are based on a simple financial calculus of profit v. loss. The prototypical example is the decision by Ford executives in the 1970s to manufacture a car with a known fatal defect: a gas tank that could explode in the event of a moderate car accident. The company’s engineers were aware of the flaw, but the cost of the repair – $11 per vehicle – was deemed too expensive. Ford decided it’d be cheaper to pay the medical and court costs of the victims and their next of kin. You can read Ford’s cost/benefit analysis here.

Who knows how many Americans have died an early death after losing their jobs, their homes and their life savings in the financial collapse engineered by Wall Street speculators four years ago?

Why isn't there more discussion of this form of capital punishment? As I explained in a book on medical malpractice years ago, mayhem perpetrated behind closed doors in the suites isn’t as accessible, nor as easily translated into graphic videos and television news stories, as is crime in the streets.

“Corporations are people,” Mitt Romney candidly explained to an angry American last year. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United indisputably granted these inanimate creatures the freedom of speech that once belonged to humans only. Abetted by government incompetence or deliberate inaction, some corporations have gained even greater power: the power to make life or death decisions for many Americans.

I don’t mean to diminish the importance of the debate over the death penalty here in California; the point made by the supporters of the new initiative to ban capital punishment is that a relatively small number of prisoners are costing everyone else a ridiculous amount of money. But we citizens ought to pay at least the same amount of attention to the de facto death penalty that corporate greed can impose.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 03/05/2012

“There Oughta Be A Law” – Want to Play?

I wrote last week that until we change the Constitution to permanently kick corporate money out of politics, we can forget about Congress protecting us from cell phone company contracts that strip consumers of their right to go to court.

I got a lot of interesting email on that post, because most people who read “Where’s Our Money” and other blogs think there “oughta be a law” of some kind. But no matter what you believe in or where you stand on the ideological spectrum, anybody who is trying to make America a better place for human beings is going to have a hard time overcoming the corrupting effect of corporate money on public officials and the democratic process.

Think I’m wrong? Here’s my challenge:

Name a policy issue that involves our power as voters, consumers, workers, taxpayers or even shareholders and I will show you how corporate money has derailed any serious progress on the matter.

If you don’t want to post it publicly, just ask that your comment remain private, or send me an email.

The same day I mused on our new status as second-class citizens courtesy of the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, President Obama’s re-election campaign endorsed a constitutional amendment to reverse that ruling. "The President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending," the Obama campaign said. This came in the context of a another controversial move: the President had decided to encourage supporters to donate to one of the Super PACs supporting him. “Super PACs” are the shadowy groups that the Supreme Court freed of restraints on political spending in Citizens United. Tens of millions of dollars, most of it from unidentified corporations and wealthy donors, have poured into the Republican primaries. But that’s just a fraction of what Super PACs are expected to spend to unelect Barack Obama in November.

In a stark example of biting the hand that has fed it, Wall Street has made it clear that it is offended even by the timid financial reforms mustered by the Obama Administration over the last few years. Now that the taxpayers have resuscitated the Money Industry, it wants to go all the way back to the insane deregulatory policies that pushed the nation into a depression in 2008.

There was a lot of critical commentary about the announcement, not just by hypocrite Republicans like John Beohner, but also by commentators on the left who feel Obama betrayed his commitment to campaign finance reform.

I for one can’t see how any candidate from either party can afford not to play by the deregulated rules of legalized bribery blessed by the Supreme Court. Like Obama’s campaign manager said, “unilateral disarmament” in the face of a massive attack of big money makes no sense. Our electoral system now assures the survival only of the financially fattest.

But will Obama really fight for the 28th Amendment? It’s one thing to endorse the concept and quite another to press for a change in the Constitution that would strip the corporate establishment of its power to elect candidates and dictate laws. The President has the bully pulpit and phenomenal power, but like the rest of us, he can't hope to pass any laws if corporations maintain a hammerlock over the legislative branch. No one knows better than he how the powerful insurance lobby turned health care reform into a corporate boondoggle. If President Obama thinks there oughta be a law, any meaningful law, in his second term, he's going to have confront Citizens United.

 

Citizens United / Congress / Harvey Column / Supreme Court / Uncategorized - 02/13/2012

Is There a Secret White House Memo on Corporate Control of our Country?

An internal White House memo in 2010, just before the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision in Citizens United, suggested President Obama address the influence of money in politics. Other items crowded his agenda instead, but this election year President Obama would be wise to take up the citizen call for a 28th Constitutional Amendment to end the corruption caused by the Court’s corporate personhood decision.

First, some important background on the 2010 memo. It used to be that a history of a presidential administration would await the president’s departure, but in recent years mid-term profiles have become the norm. Bob Woodward chronicled the Bush White House with four books, and Ron Suskind’s “Confidence Men,” published last year, captured President Obama’s errors in strategy and communications. Both authors had access to sources close to the top of the White House. But this week’s New Yorker takes the genre to a new level. Ryan Lizza’s “The Obama Memos” is a fascinating analysis of the Obama presidency that relies greatly on White House memos that Lizza somehow obtained.  One of them, the transition team’s memo to the president-elect in 2008 on the economy, is available in its entirety for download on the New Yorker site.

It was another memo, excerpted in a sidebar, that really got my attention. It was from the President’s political advisers, in late December 2009 according to Lizza, and listed “ideas on how on how try and recapture some of the anti-Washington spirit of his 2008 campaign” in the President’s 2010 State of the Union address. One of the suggestions in the memo anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case.

Campaign Finance reform: By the time of the SOTU [State of the Union], the Citizens United case will have been handed down and at the time of the decision will likely make an announcement on our response/plans. We could use the SOTU opportunity to push the ball forward on whatever proposal we put forward, calling on Congress to act by a ‘date certain’ or further fleshing out our proposals.

The Court handed down its decision on January 21, just a week before the State of the Union speech. Of course, no one expected the decision to cement into American Constitutional law the proposition that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as human beings and that spending money to influence elections is a form of free speech. So when the advisers referred to the White House's “response/plans,” it was not clear what kind of decision they were expecting, or what they thought they could do about it.

We now know that the only thing that can be done about Citizens United is for the American people to join together to overrule it, by passing the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, such as the one we have proposed.

Meanwhile, the President had something to say about corporate money in politics at the end of his State of the Union speech on January 27, 2010, and it stirred quite a controversy. He began by noting that a byproduct of the 2008 financial collapse was the public’s loss of confidence in government of, by and for the people:

We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.

 Then, with members of the Supreme Court seated right in front of him, he slammed the Court’s ruling in Citizens United:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

It was a powerful moment, to be sure, though hardly the assault on the Court that it was subsequently described as, at least in some quarters.

What happened next created the evening’s drama. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who had voted in favor of the Court’s ruling, took it upon himself to provide some instant analysis. Cameras caught Alito angrily mouthing the words “not true” in response to Obama’s critique. The New York Times recalled the moment recently.

Whatever the President or anyone else thought that night about the week-old decision, it has since opened the floodgates of corporate money while individual Americans – I’m referring to the human beings who cast ballots, not so-called "corporate citizens" – have become bystanders. Decades-old laws limiting the influence of big money in politics have fallen, with few exceptions – one of which I wrote about last week.

It’ll likely be a few years before we get to read the memos that his political team is forwarding President Obama this year. But focus on Citizens United and the power of corporations to determine the outcome of supposedly “free” elections in what is proudly hailed as the world’s greatest democracy is certainly consistent with the themes of government accountability and the ninety nine percent vs. the one percent that are dominating public discourse and even the debates between the pro-corporate Republican presidential candidates. Obama would find a welcoming, bipartisan audience for the 28th Amendment. Let’s see how far he’s prepared to go.

 

Citizens United / D.C. Disconnect / Harvey Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Supreme Court - 01/30/2012