President Jimmy Carter blasted the role money has played in worsening the tone in Washington, and said the Supreme Court ruling last week has “exacerbated” the problems.
In a wide-ranging interview, Carter said Washington had experienced a “sea change” since when he was in office.
“There was a spirit of harmony there, friendship. … All of these things are gone, primarily due to a stupid decision that the Supreme Court made on Citizens United and that they exacerbated this past week with another ruling,” Carter said Friday. “And this massive infusion of almost unrestricted money going into the political campaign, a lot of it is spent just on negative commercials to tear down the reputation of your opponent and that polarization that occurs, that didn’t exist when I ran for office.”
Do we want rich people deciding the outcome of our elections? Is this latest Supreme Court decision the ultimate in “money talks and bull sh!t walks?” I have only seen politics become more rancorous and vicious since Citizens United was decided. The acrimony is seen in local politics, state politics and nationally.
Jimmy Carter is right. The comradery that used to exist when he was in office is no more.
“The comradery that used to exist when he was in office is no more.”
When did that ever exist? Does he mean between the Dems and GOP? Opposing groups in the US have historically been at each others throats more often than not. Remember the way political groups went after each other in our early history?
The lack of any camaraderie is not due to money…..much less the Citizens United decision. The lack of it is caused by the stakes being raised ever higher by the growth of the federal government and the growth of its power over the citizen. The lack of it is caused by the rise of citizens demanding that common sense government return and limits be placed upon its power.
The attacks against Reagan were the first. And it escalated after that.
Citizens United came about because of that travesty: McCain-Feingold. The SCOTUS made the right decision. Freedom trumps.
Back in the day, legislators used to fight like fiends during the day and then go have a drink together at the close of business. There was generally a much more civil attitude.
Money tends to lock people into ideologies and pardon the expression, but it makes people bigger political whores. If some rich DB has contributed heavily into a campaign, then they are going to expect some bang for their buck. No one is going to get that upset over my $25 contribution. $250,000 might cause some alarm.
I would agree that the camaraderie that seemed to exist in the 1970s does not exist in today’s Congress. However, we also don’t have a modern-day Preston Brooks beating a modern-day Charles Sumner with a cane on the floor of the Senate (literally). So while we’ve moved away from a collegial nature to one more disjointed, and I agree with President Carter’s observation, it could be worse.
I remember reading somewhere that Members of Congress and their families used to get together regularly for picnics, and ball games, and general socializing … and most families came to Washington with their legislator family members. That was when Congress “worked” and didn’t only spend about 110 days in session. If I’m remembering my facts correctly, that changed when Newt Gingrich became speaker – a shame.
I’m not sure that rich people deciding the outcome of our elections is the cause, though. An argument could be made that rich people have been deciding the outcome of our elections since the foundation of our republic. The latest Supreme Court decision just expands their reach.
I would argue that our political parties have gone through a “great sort” in which we have realigned to polarize ideologies. It used to be that you would see Conservative Southerners and Liberal New Englanders in the same Democratic Party (and an analogous “mixing” of ideas in the Republican Party). All that seems to have changed with the near-extinction of Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans.
So while Citizens United and McCutcheon haven’t done anything to decrease the acrimony in Washington, they are also not solely responsible. Elected officials must understand that the complex nature of governing requires compromise and compromise means not everyone gets everything they want. Compromise means treating your colleagues with whom you disagree with respect – always – even when you think they “don’t deserve it.”
Confused,
Excellent analysis. Did you see the PBS series ” The Men Who Made America”? It is a must see.
Have I seen it? I can’t remember.
Thanks Elena – I haven’t seen it, but I’ll definitely put it on my “to view” list!
Breyer’s dissenting opinion in McCutcheon:
The following are selections from Breyer’s dissent, which begins on page 52 (of 94) in the Supreme Court’s PDF file (after Roberts’ majority opinion). Breyer writes:
[Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy & Thomas’s] conclusion:
* rests upon its own, not a record-based, view of the facts.
* Its legal analysis is faulty: It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake.
* It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions.
* It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign. …
Today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.
Breyer continues:
What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption.Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary “chain of communication” between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point. That is one reason why the Court has stressed the constitutional importance of Congress’ concern that a few large donations not drown out the voices of the many. That is also why the Court has used the phrase“subversion of the political process” to describe circumstances in which “elected officials are influenced to act contrary to their obligations of office by the prospect of financial gain to themselves or infusions of money into their campaigns.”
The “appearance of corruption” can make matters worse. It can lead the public to believe that its efforts to communicate with its representatives or to help sway public opinion have little purpose. And a cynical public can lose interest in political participation altogether.
The upshot is that the interests the Court has long described as preventing “corruption” or the “appearance of corruption” are more than ordinary factors to be weighed against the constitutional right to political speech. Rather, they are interests rooted in the First Amendment itself. They are rooted in the constitutional effort to create a democracy responsive to the people—a government where laws reflect the very thoughts, views, ideas, and sentiments, the expression of which the First Amendment protects. Given that end, we can and should understand campaign finance laws as resting upon a broader and more significant constitutional rationale than the plurality’s limited definition of “corruption” suggests.
Since the kinds of corruption that can destroy the link between public opinion and governmental action extend well beyond those the plurality describes, the plurality’s notion of corruption is flatly inconsistent with the basic constitutional rationale I have just described.
There [is] an indisputable link between generous political donations and opportunity after opportunity to make one’s case directly to a Member of Congress.
“Plaintiffs conceive of corruption too narrowly. Our cases have firmly established that Congress’ legitimate interest extends beyond preventing simple cash-for-votes corruption to curbing ‘undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment, and the appearance of such influence.’ ”
http://www.alternet.org/investigations/arm-yourself-read-breyers-dissent-mccutcheon-v-fec
Money has everything to do with corruption.
Some reviews of Breyer’s dissent and the case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/02/breyers-dangerous-dissent-in-mccutcheon-the-campaign-finance-case/
And to be balanced….Bill Moyers for the collectivist left: http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/02/a-blistering-dissent-in-mccutcheon-conservatives-substituted-opinion-for-fact/
More here:
http://pejmanyousefzadeh.net/2014/04/06/more-on-mccutcheon-justice-breyers-dangerous-ideas-on-free-speech/
http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/02/individual-rights-vs-collective-speech-i
Breyer’s Collectivist ideas.
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2014/04/03/breyers-first-amendment-right-to-collective-speech-in-mccutcheon/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304441304579479393186825228
Breyer demonstrated a liking for collective rights in the Heller case too.
What has changed – and gotten worse – is the gerrymandering that allows fringe candidates endless elected service. Re-draw those districts so that “communities of interest” are actually represented and you will see changes. Frank’s seat goes from FFX to Winchester. Along the way it pipestems down to Manassas to pick up reliably R votes. What on earth do people in FFX have in common with Winchester and it’s rural surrounds?
I see that as the basis of the issue. Also, not calling Frank a fringe candidate, just an example.
I agree, Andy.
I will take it a step further and say that I think the gerrymandering done in this state is almost criminal.
I can think of a few fringe candidates. You are right. Frank isn’t one of them. In fact, he is one of the more mainstream.
@AndyH
I agree. We have the technology to take humans out of the districting process. The problem is that a lot of the gerrymandering is the Fed’l demand for “minority majority” districts.
I don’t think that is affecting Virginia that much. It certainly isn’t affecting Northern Virginia. I think we have 8 delegates and 7 state senators representing PWC. That is absurd.
@Cargosquid – that’s a pretty broad brush to be using when painting the shortcomings of the districting process. The “federal demand for ‘minority majority’ districts” only occurs where necessary to remedy historical damage done and is a part of the Voting Rights Act. I’m not sure what the current definition of “a lot” is, but I can’t see the VRA being the cause of the issues we have in Congress.
I do agree that districting/redistricting has become a problem as it has created artificially “safe” districts on BOTH sides. Redistricting should be done in a nonpartisan manner to ensure that voters choose their representatives, not the other way around.
@Moon – don’t forget we also have 3 Congressional districts in PWC – 1st, 10th, and 11th – out of 11 (27%) and we have only approximately 4.9% of the total population of VA.
@Confused
I wasn’t blaming the entire process on it. But you cannot use any system that negates it as long as it is in power.
To me, the whole idea that in politics, money equals speech is obviously false. These same jurists claim to be strict interpreters of the founders intent, and there is no way to square that circle. I would love to hear someone argue that the founders would have intended for unlimited money to be spent on untrue attack ads during campaigns.
I’m amazed at the duplicity of the conservative members of the Court. Again, unlike the strict constitutional interpretationists that they purport to be, they regularly wipe out duly enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act and campaign funding laws. I’m sure the fact that all these decisions directly benefit the GOP at the polls has nothing to do with it. The days when the Court independently interpreted the Constitution and the law are long gone.
@middleman
Read any of the history of early campaigns involving the actual Framers.
Wiping out legislation is not inconsistent with being originalists. Especially when those laws counter the Constitution or are no longer needed. Robert’s argument and counter to Breyer was absolutely correct.
How does enacting more free speech only help the GOP? Do the Democrats not have their own donors?