Can you predict the future?

The US government has been asked to approve a controversial oil pipeline, Keystone XL, which would bring oil from Canadian tar sands to the US. Will the pipeline be approved? You don’t need to ask a magic 8-ball to guess, just two facts: lobbying in favor of the pipeline topped 178$ million, and lobbying against it totalled $5 million. Care to make a prediction now?

Whatever you think of Keystone XL, you know the battle was never about what American voters thought, it was about lobbyists duking it out in the halls of Congress. It was about the special interests that finance those lobbyists with huge sums of political money. They can get their way no matter what every-day Americans think – because we don’t have 178$ million in bribes. That’s our future…unless we stop it now.

The post INFOGRAPHIC: Political Money Predicts the Future of Keystone appeared first on United Republic.

Can you believe it? It cost America over 7 billion dollars to run our elections last year.

For $7 billion we got: 1 president, 33 senators and 435 representatives.  For $7 billion, we rearranged the chairs in a Congress that most Americans view less favorably than cockroaches (according to a recent poll).

If you’re a huge campaign donor, maybe $7 billion sounds like a drop in the bucket. But if you’re just a regular American, you can probably think of something else our country could have spent that money on. Maybe any of these:

• 10,000 humvees could have been supplied to the Army
• a $60 tax break could have been given to every household
• 112,000 college degrees could have be paid for
• we could have repaired 10,500 miles of road, including 714 bridges
• military aid to American allies could have been increased by %50
• we could have donated immunizations to 3.5 billion children across the world

Do any of those sound more important than politicians beating their own drums?

If we closed the floodgates on big political money in political campaigns, maybe some of these things would get done. And maybe America would better represent us all, instead of just the wealthiest political donors and lobbyists. To make that happen, we’d probably need some sort of bold plan – and we’d probably need your help.

The post What the big money in political campaigns really costs America appeared first on United Republic.

Special interest groups spend a lot of money to influence politics. Case in point: the National Rifle Association. It has a total budget of about $300 million (with membership dues, donations from manufacturers and other interests, and grants each contributing about one third). In the 2012 election cycle, it used $32 million (around 10% of its budget) for political spending. $6 million went to lobbying, and $1 million was given directly to candidates and PACs.

The bulk of the NRA’s political budget was for “outside spending,” on things like television ads and billboards. What kinds of ads? Another $6 million dollars bought positive ads, promoting a candidate or idea, but three times more money, $18 million, bought attack ads or other negative messaging.

Whether you support the NRA’s mission or not, that’s a lot of political advertising. And the NRA is not alone: all kinds of special interest groups are pouring big money into political campaigns. That’s part of why the last election cost $6 billion. They discovered that negativity works, even if it results in vitriol and political gridlock. If we want cooler heads in government to prevail, and politicians to actually represent us, the reign of big money in politics has to end.

The post INFOGRAPHIC: The NRA’s political self-defense appeared first on United Republic.

A leaked presentation shows that incoming Democratic Congressmen spend about five hours a day fundraising. Courtesy: The Huffington Post

A new report from the Huffington Post spells out something Washington insiders have known for decades–members of Congress spend just four hours a day doing the work their constituents elected them to do. The rest of their 10 hour work days are spent on the phone or shaking hands with the well-heeled donors who command an outsized influence in the corridors of the Capitol Building.

“The daily schedule prescribed by the Democratic leadership contemplates a nine or 10-hour day while in Washington,” the Huffington Post reported based on a leaked PowerPoint presentation prepared by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for new members. “Of that, four hours are to be spent in ‘call time’ and another hour is blocked off for ‘strategic outreach,’ which includes fundraisers and press work. An hour is walled off to ‘recharge,’ and three to four hours are designated for the actual work of being a member of Congress–hearings, votes, and meetings with constituents. If the constituents are donors, all the better.”

All told, a member of Congress spends the majority of their day in business solely of pleasing donors. This raises the question as to whether the job of a Congressman is simply to raise money for his or her party or actually spend time representing their constituents. The congressional training seminar sends a pretty clear message about what they think. Aside from neglecting their constitutionally prescribed duties, this dependence on donor money raises another ugly specter of money in politics, as the article explains.

“It really does affect how members of Congress behave if the most important thing they think about is fundraising,” the article quotes retired Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) as saying. “You end up being nice to people that probably somebody needs to be questioning skeptically. It’s a fairly disturbing suggested schedule. You won’t ask tough questions in hearings that might displease potential contributors, won’t support amendments that might anger them, will tend to vote the way contributors want you to vote.”

The depth of political corruption exposed by the leaked presentation highlights the double-standard that politicians live under. Any average citizen who spent over half their workday neglecting the job they were hired to do would be shown the door in short order. Congressmen and women, in their endless lust for political money, actually get “promoted” by giving higher preference to partisan goals and political bribery than focusing on statesmanship and doing the job taxpayers actually pay them to do.

With inauguration day in recent memory, it’s worth remembering the promise of then candidate Barack Obama in 2007, who proclaimed in a speech that “[he was] in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.” While passing years have seen an explosion of corrupting money in politics, they’ve also given birth to a real movement to end business as usual in Washington D.C. The Represent.Us campaign along with many other good government groups are working to change the lopsided schedules of elected officials to get money out and voters back in.

The post Congress’ Training Schedule Shows the Influence of Money in Politics appeared first on United Republic.

A surge of populism swept the Republican party in the 2008 elections, rallying for fiscal responsibility and lower taxes, and against the moneyed interests that rule Washington. It was made up of everyday Americans, rallying under the name Tea Party. There was no single leader, and it was not organized by the GOP; instead, its legitimacy came from being grassroots. But big political money can creep into any movement, as powerful individuals push their own agendas. It’s the very same political corruption the Represent.Us campaign is working to defeat.

While there’s no official Tea Party political party, there are big organizations that claim to represent it. None is bigger than FreedomWorks, a Super-PAC created by the billionaire Koch brothers (with some old-school GOP advisors like Dick Armey and Jack Kemp). Those ties hint that FreedomWorks might not be so grassroots after all. But its 2012 tax returns are even clearer: of a $41 million budget in 2012, 88% came from large donations. The lion’s share of those big gifts came from just 141 rich donors, who each gave $10,000 or more. Top among those donors is one man, Richard Stephenson, who donated 30% of FreedomWorks’s budget, with an amazing gift of $12 million. Meanwhile, small donations were just 12% of the PAC’s budget.

12% populist doesn’t sound very populist, does it? But with the campaign spending laws we have now, there’s no limit to what people like Stephenson can give. He’s a perfect example of why big moneyed interests, with their own Super-PAC, will always speak louder than the ordinary Americans who support a real grassroots movement. Think we should change those rules, and maybe let the people speak for themselves? That’s what the Represent.Us campaign is doing.

The post Moneyed Interests Hijack Tea Party Name appeared first on United Republic.

Last minute Super PAC spending isn’t revealed until well after the election is over.

Over a month has passed since the polls closed on Election Day 2012. Since then, the final totals have been tallied, the results certified and new members of Congress have even made their first trip to Washington D.C. to begin freshman orientation.

Yet voters had to wait until Dec. 6 to see the donors behind a slew of campaign ads carefully crafted by several major SuperPACs. In order to exploit a loophole in the law, these groups waited until the last minute to bombard the airwaves with commercials and stuff mailboxes with flyers, according to the New York Times.

“A last-minute burst of below-the-radar cash has begun flooding into the national elections…,” reported the Times on Nov. 3. “But unlike the well-known outside groups that have dominated the airwaves until now, many of the new spenders did not formally exist a few weeks ago. They have generic-sounding names, rarely have Web sites and are exploiting a loophole that will keep their donors anonymous until long after the last votes are counted.”

That means voters went to the polls without knowing who bankrolled “Freedom Fund North America” a SuperPAC created just weeks before the election that dropped nearly $1 million into Senate races in North Dakota and Montana, according to the Times. Likewise, voters in Michigan had no idea who was behind the “Hardworking Americans Committee,” a SuperPAC that spent over $1 million in the final weeks of the election against incumbent Senator Debbie Stabenow, the Times reported.

Timely and adequate disclosure is essential if voters are to make informed decisions on Election Day. Laws designed to promote secrecy do a disservice to democracy while protecting special interest groups that would prefer not to leave footprints as they court influence among politicians. Disingenuous campaign tactics such as these only serve to further erode public faith in the democratic process.

Disclosure rules seek not to stifle political speech, but serve a crucial purpose in providing voters with information about candidates. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in its per curiam opinion during the seminal 1976 campaign finance case of Buckley v. Valeo:

 “…disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity. This exposure may discourage those who would use money for improper purposes either before or after the election. A public armed with information about a candidate’s most generous supporters is better able to detect any post-election special favors that may be given in return.”

The American Anti-Corruption Act, launched by United Republic’s Represent.us campaign, seeks to end the shell games played by special interest groups by mandating that anyone that spends $10,000 or more to campaign for or against any candidate file a disclosure report with the Federal Elections Commission within 24 hours. Free speech would be protected and encouraged, but the political sleight-of-hand that allows wealthy interest groups to obviate the law and subvert the democratic process would come to an end upon passage of the act. When ordinary citizens are required to sign their name and affix their address to donations of a few hundred dollars, it’s absurd to allow multi-million dollar donors to hide behind dummy corporations and innocuously named non-profits.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant for what ails our democracy. It’s time for ordinary citizens to reach out and pull back the curtains.

The post Super PAC Shell Games Highlight Need for New Disclosure Rules appeared first on United Republic.

Even after the 2007 ethics reforms, the revolving door between Congress and the special interests continues to turn.

the promise of a high paying position after leaving congress. This fall back option implies an obligation for congresspeople to vote favorably on legislation that will affect their future employer. Many of the places where these ex-legislators are headed will be K Street and to other influence peddlers. Politico reports on a few of these cases, citing:

Retiring Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) will join Duke Energy early next year as senior vice president of federal affairs. Rep. Jason Altmire, a Pennsylvania Democrat who lost his primary, is joining insurer Florida Blue as a government affairs executive. Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.), who resigned July 31, will form a public affairs firm, Republic Consulting, with lobbyist Hunter Bates.

…

Headhunters are excited about several lawmakers who lost election bids this month or left, including Reps. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) and Connie Mack (R-Fla.), former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Republican Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno.

Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas), who did not run for reelection, says he’s in the final running for a position at a San Antonio-based company that would have him overseeing government relations and public relations, among other things.

Politico further reports that:

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) today said she’s doing an about face and leaving Congress in February to become chief executive officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

And finally, the Washington Post reports that:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) will leave the U.S. Senate next year to become president of the Heritage Foundation, succeeding Edwin Feulner, who first co-founded the conservative think tank in 1973 and has served as president for the past 36 years.

Unfortunately, this practice is as legal as it is commonplace. When lawmakers enjoy (on average) a 1452% raise between their jobs, it’s difficult to say exactly where their allegiances lay or when these employment deals were made. This is not a holiday tradition that has shown any signs of stopping unless some type of action is taken. In order to close the revolving door between congresspeople and the special interests that fund them, the American people must hold them accountable and force them to Represent.Us.

The post It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like… Corruption appeared first on United Republic.

Lobbying is a billion dollar industry, and one of the biggest things corporate lobbyists do is get lower taxes for their clients. But if they pay less, who covers the difference? Oh right, the American people do.

In 2011, five big industries spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying politicians. And they were given over $100 billion in federal subsidies by the government. That’s a huge pay-off: for every sector, the return on investment (ROI) of lobbying was over 1,700% –  and above 70,000% for big agriculture and private defense contractors. By sacrificing a tiny slice of their profits, companies can manipulate the system for huge gains.

What does that $100 billion in subsidies mean to you? Divided between every US citizen, we all paid $43 to support defense contractors, and over $100 to support the financial sector (and you know they need more government help). In total, every tax-payer is hit with $314 bill to support private companies’ tax-breaks.

What made it possible? Our broken political system that makes corporate lobbyists – and whoever pays them – more powerful, and more important, than tax-paying voters.

The post Want Lower Taxes? Stop the Corporate Lobbyists appeared first on United Republic.

The Crossroads Network founded by Karl Rove is will be the largest monetary influencing factor for the American Right in the upcoming elction.

states’ rights. Even so, one of the largest, most infamous groups in the country is exerting moneyed influence across several state lines. Crossroads GPS is a conservative super PAC, one of the myriad corruption peddlers born of the Citizens United ruling in 2010. Karl Rove’s “American Crossroads” group has its fiscal hands in at least eight different state congressional races while maintaining substantial influence in the presidential election.

These states include Missouri, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Maine, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Nebraska. Rove’s 501(c) organizations have also bought out huge “issue ads” against Obama and the Democrats in Iowa, Nevada, Michigan, Florida and North Carolina. Even further, they have recently launched an ad buy in almost all of the swing states targeting women. Even so, the most worrisome element, as the Sunlight foundation reports, is that:

The Crossroads network has spent approximately [$174 million] on the 2012 election and almost three out of every four dollars (70.5%) of this organization’s spending has come from anonymous donors.

This sum essentially ensures that Crossroads will be the most influential outside group in this election cycle. To illustrate: Crossroads has doubled the spending of the pro-Romney super PAC Restore our Future and may even outpace the incredible performance of the Republican National Committee.

The Crossroads groups have pledged $300 million to influence the 2012 election. With the average Senate seat costing around $10 million, it’s not only problematic that this single entity can have so much influence in so many different states,  but it’s also clearly paving the way to corruption after November 6th.

The post Crossroads to Corruption: Crossing State Lines appeared first on United Republic.

Did you wonder why the candidates spent so much time talking about coal and fossil fuel in Tuesday night’s presidential debate? They fought over who was a bigger friend to the coal industry, discussed natural gas prices and domestic oil production. Obama mentioned wind subsidies but didn’t push clean energy like he did during the last election.

What’s different after four years? For one thing, the ads bought by big energy companies: Four years ago, clean energy companies outspent “big fossil” by 50%, but now the situation is reversed. So far this year, traditional energy companies have put more than $150 million into ads, while their rivals only spent $41 million. That’s a lot of corporate influence.

Don’t think ads amount to influence? Consider what the presidential candidates have said about energy policy over the past few years. As ad spending has shifted, so has their rhetoric. While they both used to talk about alternative fuels and hybrid cars, oil and coal have now taken center stage.

Now, we’re not saying the candidates get their policies from prime-time commercials. But companies buy ads for a reason: When big corporations flex their ad-spending muscles, everyone in Washington knows who has money to spend, and what voters will be talking about. Shouldn’t our debates be about what actually matters, and not what corporate influence tells us matters?

The post Corporate Influence Controls Debate on Energy appeared first on United Republic.