I sincerely wish that I could see some light at the end of the political tunnel, but to use an overworked cliché the only light I can see is that of an express train coming toward us. Although the relevant polls on the subject show that the public is significantly opposed to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case permitting unlimited and undisclosed corporate or organizational funding in favor of or against candidates for electoral public office, I do not see a way forward to act on that sentiment. If the existing Senate could not overcome a lock-step 41 vote Republican filibuster in its efforts to enact a law requiring simple disclosure of the source of such funding, it is extremely unlikely that the upcoming Congress will be able to do so.
Since special interests have now been given license through unlimited secret funding to enable the election of those politicians who support their special interests and to defeat those who decline to do so my fear is that Mussolini’s dream of an industry-controlled fascist economy is about to become a permanent feature of the American political scene.
Politics and the resulting economic policy in the United States have long been dominated by the money and lobbying of special interests, saved only by the clash between competing special interests or between industrial and labor interests, with an occasional revolt of the voting public such as occurred in 1932 and again in 2008 in the face of an existing or impending depression. But it is hard to see how such an electoral revolt can happen again with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Citizens United case permitting unlimited secret corporate funding of attack or support ads in favor of specific candidates for elective public office.
If the Congress could and would enact legislation placing reasonable limits on the right of corporations and other organizations to support or attack political candidates, such as the recently filibustered legislation to require simple disclosure of the source of funding, it is at least possible that the Supreme Court would uphold it, [note Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s oft-quoted language that even free speech does not give one the right to cry fire in a crowded theatre], but I do not see any possibility of such legislation being adopted as long as the filibuster rule is in place.
It might be possible for the new Senate, assuming it is still controlled by the Democrats, either to eliminate the filibuster rule or reduce the number of votes needed to overcome it from 60 to 55, but the former would risk giving Republicans absolute control of Congress in 2012 and the latter would do the Democrats no good since they presumably will not have control of 55 seats in the new Senate even if they are able to hold control of the House. In addition, any attempt to change the filibuster rule in the face of significant Republican gains in the mid-year elections would be positioned by the Republicans as akin to Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court and thereby give the Republicans an important issue for the 2012 election.
I sincerely wish that I could see a path forward in this toxic political environment and I will continue to do all that I can to fight against it through support of progressive candidates and causes, but I find it most difficult to be optimistic about the outcome in the foreseeable future.
