The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

And here you thought that The Manchurian Candidate was just a taut thriller with the odd casting of Angela Lansbury as Laurence Harvey's mother. Not so, says Greg Palast. It's looking very much like our political future:

I'm losing sleep over the millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."[..]

And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?"

We'll never know.

Scary thought. Richard Power evokes the great Sinclair Lewis cautionary tale of fascism disguised as "freedom", It Can't Happen Here and suggests that the satirical has become too close to the truth:

As craven as much of the leadership of the Democratic Party has become, there is a difference [between the Republican and Democratic Parties], even today, and those who deny that difference are culpable in all that has happened to us. Of course, in the weeks, months and years ahead, there will likely be no difference at all -- because of Citizens United v. [FEC]

As Larisa Alexandrovna points out, in SCOTUS ruling = Powell Memo goal = Fall of democracy..., the decision is not only an abomination in its own right, it is also the achievement of a goal set forth in the Powell Memo.

Now it is not a question of what we must do, but who we are. And the preliminary results on who we are do not bode well.

DOWNLOADS: (1565)

PLAYS: (3125)

Embed

(h/t Heather.)

First of all, I'd like to reiterate that yes, a bill without a public option can serve the same purpose as the public option: namely, to force efficiency and competition. So yeah, I do see this as a win - and so does Nate Silver. And I don't buy the insurance company "we won" mantra just yet, because the Medicare buy-in proposal is a real threat to them. After all, the 55+ group is very profitable for them.

It seems clear the most important component of a plan lacking a public option is a mandated medical-loss ratio. But here's the most important detail of a requirement that companies spend 90 percent of each premium dollar on care: Who will be responsible for enforcement? In order to work, it's got to be the feds.

This is the most important part of the argument, because insurance companies (and their PACs) have enormous influence in state markets - and in state legislatures. State insurance commissioners are usually (not always) hired from the ranks of the industry, and are famous not only for rubber-stamping rate increases, but for far too often turning a blind eye to insurance company abuses.

What we want to watch in the Medicare buy-in is, are they going to take premiums (subsidies, whatever form it finally takes) into the Medicare trust fund? Believe it or not, it would be a very good thing if they did. A younger, healthier population would actually lessen the strain on the Medicare system. But I'm betting Republicans will shamelessly present it as "an assault on Medicare."

We also have to look at who gets to buy in - and why. Under the current proposal, people 55+ get to pick Medicare through the new exchanges in 2014. But what do we do until then? Well, they plan to allow them in starting in 2011.

Is this only for high-risk patients? Because it would really be a drain on the Medicare system (if the premiums went into the same system) if it was. It would be a bad idea anyway, because it would be too difficult to sustain if it was all people with pre-existing conditions.

Will the new Medicare members be charged the full cost? At 65, you're heavily subsidized for most of the cost, paying about $100 a month. The real cost is closer to $500. So will there be subsidies to purchase Medicare? Definitely, in 2014.

In the meantime? Not clear. This is one of the areas on which you want to lobby Congress.

You probably already know the problems with triggers - namely, that they're usually written in such a way as to make it highly unlikely they ever kick in. (That's why Queen Olympia loves them.)

As you might expect, we'll be watching closely.

From the Center for Public Integrity, some very interesting news. This sort of undercuts Obama's "let's make the Blue Dogs happy" strategy, doesn't it?

It’s official. The Blue Dog’s fundraising slowdown was not just a symptom of the dog days of summer. Newly released public disclosure forms indicate that over September, the coalition’s PAC took in its smallest monthly total yet this year.

Our analysis of the fiscally conservative and increasingly influential Blue Dog Coalition and its funding noted that the group’s political action committee had averaged more than $176,000 in receipts from other PACs over the first half of 2009. Their monthly haul dropped to a surprisingly low $27,000 in July, rebounded somewhat in August, and but then dropped again to just $12,500 in September.

That September money came from just three donations — $5,000 from accounting and professional services giant Ernst & Young’s PAC, $2,500 from the Food Marketing Institute PAC, and $5,000 from the National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund.

After raising $1.1 million from January to June, the committee raised less than $87,000 between July and September — less than it brought in during any one of the preceding five months. And in just three months, the Blue Dog PAC’s monthly fundraising average dropped by more than $50,000 — probably not the sort of fiscal conservatism the 52-member coalition was hoping for.

DOWNLOADS: (1484)

PLAYS: (5613)

Embed

I suspect Ann Coulter didn't really intend, appearing yesterday on Fox News with Marc Lamont Hill, to open a big wide window for everyone to see in brilliantly illuminated color the deep, sneering contempt in which your average Republican pundit actually holds all of those "hard-working average Americans" they normally profess to represent.

But she did:

Coulter: I think it's brilliant. And I'm baffled by people being baffled by it. Um, I mean, she's a huge, huge star. And meanwhile she's stuck up in Ulan Bator, she can neither respond to her many admirers who want her to come speak down in the Lower 48, and want her, you know, to be raising money for them, starting PACs, and being the voice of conservatism, which she is. She can't do that, or she'll be neglecting the state.

... Look, she's a lame-duck governor, it isn't her fault that she became a huge, huge star, but she is too big for the position now. And people acting like, you know, leaving a governorship is a step down.

Hill: When she was on the campaign, she talked about fighting for the little person, fighting for the state of Alaska. And now all of a sudden to say, she's too big for an elected office. I mean, how can you be too big for an elected office. That's her job. That ostensibly was her calling.

Coulter: Well, she doesn't say that. I'm saying that. Obvious.

Hill: No, no, you are saying that, but you're replicating the very thing that she said shen she said that 'I have a higher calling.' If she says that her calling is higher, it essentially is greater than the thing that she's doing right now, and that borders again on absurd.

Coulter: Than dealing with fishing licenses in Alaska. [ed. note: corrected]

Hill: Tell that to the people of Alaska.

Hill is right: Coulter is just giving clear voice to the message that Sarah Palin is sending. That message is: She's too big for those little people in Alaska anymore. Why, she's so big now she can save the world. "Don't cry for me, Wasilla!"

I bet those Alaskan voters are real impressed right about now. The rest of us too.

BeggarsCanBeChoosers: A rather large flaw in the fervent condemnations of pro-choice advocates as 'Nazis' is that Hitler himself, and the Nazi doctrine he created, were unequivocally opposed to any individual right to abortion. Guess it's time to take another look at that much maligned DHS report on right-wing extremism.

Truthdig: War Is Sin

We are respectable negroes: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack of Black Privilege in the Age of Barack Obama

Election Law: Live blogging the Coleman/Franken oral argument

Jesus' General: Tancredo PAC's Executive Director goin' all Chuck Norris on the Brown! 

Surviving the World : Lesson 132 - Twitter (h/t swimgirl)

I think this letter says it all, as I am a co-sponsor. So...

Stop Fake Reform:

We read that you have chosen to accept President Obama's ban on fundraising from PACs and lobbyists, but only for June 18 -- the day he headlines a fundraiser for you.

This isn’t just hypocritical -- it defies common sense that you'd think the public would believe this was a principled stand against special-interest influence.

For 364 days a year, your rules would allow members of Congress to leave a hearing about regulating Wall Street and then walk straight to the DSCC and DCCC offices to “dial for dollars” from Wall Street lobbyists who want more bailout money and less accountability to taxpayers. Most Americans would find that conflict of interest repulsive.

We call on you to ban PAC and lobbyist contributions 365 days a year, just as President Obama did.

This is actually the least you could do to take on special-interest influence.

Will the DSCC and DCCC reject donations from executives of bailout recipients such as AIG, the way you did for Enron? Will you require candidates you support to publicly endorse the real solution to special-interest influence: public funding of congressional elections?

The public is tired of political gamesmanship. Please recognize that your “one day of reform” is absurd on its face and, if left standing, an embarrassment to your organizations. We urge you to announce a 365-day ban of PAC and lobbyist contributions – at a minimum.

Sincerely,

Your signature.

The GOP media machine openly questioned whether it was appropriate for President Barack Obama to travel to Los Angeles this week, when his "business" should be on the economy, the implication being that Obama was not capable of multi-tasking. It's an easy mistake, given the previous president could not watch TV and chew pretzels simultaneously. However, American News Project producer Harry Hanbury decided to take a look at the real business of Congress: fundraising. Collecting as many invitations as he could find, Hanbury found no less than two dozen fundraisers taking place over the course of a single day in DC and tried to visit them all:

Fundraising parties seem to be proliferating--possibly as an unintended consequence of the otherwise laudable post-Abramoff reforms of 2007, which banned gifts from lobbyists to members of Congress, restricted the use of corporate jets by members, and curbed junkets like Abramoff's notorious Scottish golfing trip. In his new book, So Damn Much Money, Robert Kaiser quotes the prominent lobbyist Lawrence O'Brien III, who says the latest reforms "have shifted the emphasis over to political fundraising. Now writing checks and raising money is the simplest pathway to completely legal personal face time with members and their senior staff."

It all may be "completely legal," but campaign finance advocates wonder what deals get cut along with all the big checks. After all, just before his sentencing no less an authority than Jack Abramoff reportedly said, "I was participating in a system of legalized bribery. All of it is bribery, every bit of it."

It may take time to dismantle what Kaiser calls "the culture of money, lobbying, and self-dealing that has metastasized over four decades." But a surprising alliance of good government groups, lobbyists, and business leaders believe this is the moment for sweeping campaign finance reform. They are rallying behind bills that would publicly fund races for the House, Senate, and the presidency. That would certainly throw a wet blanket over D.C.'s party circuit. But would it really be so a bad if members of Congress no longer felt compelled to spend a quarter to a third of their time raising campaign cash?

The numbers we're talking about are staggering. Yet, Eric Cantor--so concerned with Obama's ability to talk to Americans and handle the economic crisis--has no problem with his ability to take funds from PACs and supporters and obstruct the economic solutions the Obama administration proposes.

As a final note, think about how much good the $40,000 that Woolsey aide Stephanie Kenny (the only candid person in the video) mentions at the end of the video would benefit the students of Valley Academy High School, many of whom are so impoverished that the only decent meal they get every day is their school lunch.

Is there a better argument for public financing?