Democratic candidates and campaign workers gearing up for ’12 statewide races, particularly those facing wealthy Republican opponents, should take a couple of minutes to read the L.A. Times analysis of campaign spending and budgeting in the race for the California governorship. The article, by Seema Mehta and Maeve Reston, provides a highly instructive breakdown comparing not only expenditures, but the timing of outlays for the Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman campaigns, as indicated by recently-published financial disclosure reports .
Of course the caveat is that the California campaign was extraordinary in that Whitman set records for spending and she also had a tough primary campaign. In addition, “Brown entered the race with $100 million of name ID,” as Whitman campaign consultant Rob Stutzman put it. What is instructive, however, is how the Brown campaign marshalled its far more limited economic resources, and his strategy may provide a useful template for underfunded Democratic candidates nationwide. Here’s an excerpt:

Meg Whitman vastly outspent Jerry Brown on virtually every facet of the 2010 contest for governor. From focus groups and consultants to private planes and lavish fundraisers, Whitman campaigned like the billionaire she is, spending $177 million to Brown’s $36 million.

The article goes on to compare Brown’s and Whitman’s expenditures for travel, direct mail, signs, event staging, consultants and staff. But the most important revelation:

But in one key area — television advertising — the Democrat nearly kept pace with Whitman during the final sprint of the campaign, allowing him to make his case to voters before they cast ballots…”By holding our fire, we were competitive in the final month and almost equal in the final four weeks,” Brown’s campaign manager, Steve Glazer, said.
…As is customary in California campaigns, both candidates poured the bulk of their money into communicating with voters through television and radio advertisements. Whitman spent more than $120 million — two-thirds of her campaign treasury — producing and airing commercials. Brown spent for that purpose nearly three-quarters of the $40 million he raised. Between Sept. 1 and Election Day, Whitman spent $40 million buying airtime to Brown’s $29 million. But much of Brown’s spending occurred in the final month, allowing him to maximize his efforts precisely when voters were preparing to cast ballots.

So even in cutting-edge California, home of the digital vanguard, television still rules as the primary conveyance of political persuasion. The L.A. Times analysis does not take into account the quality of the candidates’ ads and Whitman’s image problems. But it does indicate that, investing heavily in air time during the final campaign weeks can offset an opponent’s overall economic advantage.

I’m probably not alone in feeling ambivalent about Senator Jim Webb’s announced retirement from the U.S. Senate. I had already given up on the notion of him as a promising southern Democratic leader. He had made it pretty clear that he just didn’t have the fire in the belly to become a major player in Democratic politics. Webb always seemed a bit stiff in the limelight, more the introverted writer than the exuberant public figure.
A decorated veteran and policy wonk, Webb had the creds and brains to do more. He was progressive on economic issues, and I was hoping at one point that he could help awaken a progressive populist spirit among southern voters. I liked the way he stood up to Bush on Iraq, and his response to Bush’s ’07 SOTU got well-deserved plaudits. He took some heat from women activists for his comments in another statement about women in combat, and Latinos, regarding his hard line on immigration issues. Perhaps he could have healed those wounds, but it’s all moot now.
I think Dems have a good chance of holding Webb’s seat. Polls, schmolls, if the economy improves significantly, Tim Kaine, Terry McAuliffe or Tom Periello could beat George Allen, who faces a bruising primary battle with a tea party candidate. Of the three Dems, Kaine has the stronger track record, cash and VA know-how, but he has made “not interested” noises. McAuliffe has dough, but lacks charisma, though Allen is not exactly flush in that department either.
Whoever Dems nominate, it should be a marquee Senate race. Dems need this seat, especially given the GOP advantage in having to defend far fewer Senate seats in ’12. The “upper south” (Va and NC) is critical for Dem hopes in ’12, and this seat could be the lynchpin.

The Sunday centennial of Ronald Reagan’s birthday will be an occasion for MSM paeans to our 40th President. The hagiographic tributes will probably be lead by his former speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, who set the stage with her 2002 memoir, “When Character Was King,” the gold standard for unbridled Reagan-worship. A fact-focused distillation of the contrarian view follows:

1. Time magazine reports that documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that, as President of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan and first wife, Actress Jane Wyman, “provided federal agents with the names of actors they believed were Communist sympathizers.” Yes, “believed.”
2. A former supporter of FDR and the New Deal, Reagan began dissing “big government” after taking a lucrative job as spokesman for General Electric.
3. Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Running for Governor in 1966, he reportedly said, “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so.” Be surprised if this is noted on Meet the Press this Sunday.
4. Reagan appointed Justice William Rhenquist to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, despite testimony that Rhenquist not only advocated segregationist views, but had personally participated in “ballot security” campaigns to prevent African Americans from voting in 1962 and 64.
5. In 1976 Reagan complained about a “strapping young buck” using food stamps to buy a T-bone. He had also made frequent disparaging mention of a “welfare queen” driving her cadillac.
6. In 1980 he launched his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town most famous for being the place where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. Reagan seized the opportunity to declare “I believe in states rights” in his speech. It’s hard to see him as anything but a divisive figure in terms of race relations. And then there was that yucky Bitburg cemetery tribute to Nazi soldier “victims.”
7. Reagan became the chief mouthpiece in the effort to defeat the initiative that became Medicare, warning listeners in a recording he made for radio, that if they didn’t write to their congressional representatives to prevent it “we will awake to find that we have so­cialism. And if you don’t do this, and if I don’t do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.” As President, he did a flip-flop, and protected Medicare.
8. Unemployment averaged 7.5 percent during Reagan’s presidency, according to BLS statistics.
9. Despite President Reagan’s vocal support for tax cuts, he signed bills providing tax hikes in every year from 1981-87, with most of the burden falling on the middle class, reportedly doubling the tax for those earning less than $40K per year..
10. Reagan’s two terms produced an uptick in federal income tax receipts (1980-89), from $308.7 billion to $549 billion.
11. No President ever dissed government spending more than did Reagan. Yet, federal Federal spending grew by 7.1 percent annually during the Reagan Administration, according to budget statistics. Reagan often portrayed himself as the soul of fiscal responsibility. But Under Reagan the national debt nearly tripled, from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.
12. The Iran-Contra scandal, in which the Reagan administration provided covert arms sales to Iran to fund military aid to Nicaragua’s Contras to overthrow a democratically-elected government in violation of U.S. law, resulted in 14 indictments among Reagan staff members, and 11 convictions.

The most treasured of Reagan myths is that he single-handedly ended the Cold War, staring down the evil empire like Gary Cooper in ‘High Noon.’ Scant mention is made of the fact that he was given a huge, pivotal gift in the person of his adversary, Mikhail Gorbachev, one of the saner leaders of the 20th century. Most presidents would have done what Reagan did, which was keep military spending high until the Soviets caved. Crediting Reagan with ‘courageous’ leadership here is a bit of a stretch.
I’m sure President Reagan had his good points, and we can be assured that they will be repeated ad nauseum on Sunday. He was certainly an excellent orator and highly effective in implementing the conservative agenda in many respects. And he did achieve major progress in nuclear arms control. But it will be surprising if hard-headed critiques of his presidency will get a fair hearing, which is important given the centrality of the Reagan myth in Republican propaganda.
In his WaPo wrap-up review of three documentaries about the Reagan years, Hank Stuever acknowledges that the ’80s did produce a lot of grand rock and pop music. However, his selection of the emblematic song for the Reagan era, “Seasons in the Sun,” which was popular during Reagan’s tenure as California Governor and concludes one of the documentaries, brings a queasy chill. I envision a bunch of Bohemian Grovesters in drag or lederhosen or whatever they don at those gatherings, remembering the Reagan era, swaying tankards and warbling “We had joy, we had fun. We had seasons in the sun.” And I’m awfully glad it’s no longer morning in America.

I’m in wholehearted agreement with Ed Kilgore’s point, made in his post on Romney’s stake in Judge Robert Vinson’s ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), that, “conservative commitment to federalist principles is almost certainly being overrated on this issue as on many others over the years. …federalism is primarily a mean to a desired end, and is disposable otherwise.”
Ed cites conservative support for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and the high court’s decision in “Bush v Gore” as the leading examples of conservatives’ extravagant flexibility on federalist arguments. I would also cite the latter as cause for concern that the Supreme Court’s partisan conservatives may set a new standard for activist interpretation when it comes time to rule on the ACA.
As Ed noted, conservatives will use the full range of legal challenges to invalidate the Act. The only question is whether the conservative high court justices are politicized to the point where they will do the Tea Party’s bidding.
Legal commentator Jonathan Turley thinks the Act is weakened by the omission of a “severability clause,” expressly allowing courts to remove provisions of the law as unconstitutional, while allowing the rest of the law to stand. A severability clause was removed from an earlier draft of the bill. However, provisions have been severed in previous rulings on other laws, even when there was no severability clause.
Senator Dick Durbin makes a strong case that the Act is on solid legal grounds. His remarks in a recent television interview provide excellent boilerplate for Dems seeking a succinct rebuttal to the conservative meme that the law is somehow unconstitutional. Here’s the text, followed by a video of the interview with Senator Durbin, one of the Dems’ better soundbite craftsmen:

This law has been challenged in 16 diffferent federal courts. Twelve judges have dismissed the challenges. Four have considered it. Two ruled that it was constitutional, two unconstitutional. So it isn’t exactly a wave of sentiment against the law.

The quote kicks in about a quarter of the way into the interview:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Smooth.

Neither political party has much to gain by engaging in “Who lost Egypt?” finger-pointing, since both parties have demonstrated a high tolerance for Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship for 27 years. Such are the realpolitik considerations of mideast diplomacy.
Of course that didn’t stop Max Boot from waxing nostalgic in Commentary about Ronald Reagan’s supposed confronting Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Boot’s less than subtle suggestion that the GOP has a superior record in confronting abusive regimes and would somehow be doing better than President Obama in addressing the events in Egypt falls flat. Smart Republicans don’t want to subject their human rights policy toward South Africa, China, Nicaragua and a dozen other abusive dictatorships to comparative scrutiny. Not that Dems have all that much to brag about, other than Democratic congressional leadership’s passage of some significant human rights measures like anti-apartheid legislation.
What Dems should rethink is the nature of our means of confronting abusive regimes. Clearly, we can no longer afford open-ended, large-scale military occupation of nations, nor multi-billion dollar budgets to subsidize repressive governments. We should more assertively question the value of subsidizing abusive regimes just because they serve our geopolitical interests, while abusing the human rights of their citizens. It’s always been wrong; Now it’s a bad investment as well.
President Obama gave a great speech in Cairo in 2009, challenging Arab nations to embrace Democracy, and offering them hope and opportunity in return. Democrats should now rally around his vision with a new focus on our policy towards Arab nations. What we can escalate instead is our efforts to educate “at-risk” populations about the benefits of tolerance, secular government, free speech and democracy. Let a stronger engagement in the effort to win hearts and minds replace military force. That’s the kind of nation-building that merits our sustained support, and it’s a lot more cost-effective in the long run than squandering billions every week on military operations that win temporary victories at best.
It’s highly unlikely that the uprising in Egypt will do much to directly influence voters in the U.S. to support one party or the other. But the protests in Egypt do provide a timely reminder that the days when subsidizing repressive dictatorships were a sound investment are coming to a close. We need a new grand strategy to win respect, instead of fear, in the strife-torn nations of the middle east, and Democrats should lead the way.

It’s unlikely that anyone at 1600 PA Ave. will lose much sleep about the left critique of Obama’s SOTU speech, and the white house is understandably euphoric about glowing reviews of the President’s state of the union address. In a CNN/Opinion Research survey, 84 percent of those who watched the speech liked Obama’s address; and 52 percent responded “very positively.” A CBS News/Knowlege Networks poll indicated 91 percent favored the president’s proposals.
But progressive critics nonetheless made some good points that merit consideration, mostly having to do with what was not said.
The Nation’s contributing editor Robert Scheer offered the left’s most acerbic review, saying,

I had expected Barack Obama to be his eloquent self, appealing to our better nature, but instead he was mealy-mouthed in avoiding the tough choices that a leader should delineate in a time of trouble….The speech was a distraction from what seriously ails us: an unabated mortgage crisis, stubbornly high unemployment and a debt that spiraled out of control while the government wasted trillions making the bankers whole. Instead, the president conveyed the insular optimism of his fat-cat associates…

American Prospect editor-at-large and WaPo columnist Harold Meyerson raised an omission I wondered about:

If we’re going to rewrite our corporate tax code, why don’t we rewrite it to reward those companies that employ workers at good jobs here at home?…Why can’t our tax laws discriminate between those companies that both develop and manufacture their products here and those that go abroad for cheaper labor?…We can at least use tariffs and taxes to reward those corporations that invest at home and penalize those that disinvest in this nation’s future. …That carrot and stick is what’s missing from the president’s commendable-as-far-as-they-go proposals.

Open Left’s Mike Lux had a mostly favorable review of SOTU, calling it “a solid, steady performance,” but with some pointed concerns:

…There also were some anti-progressive, irritating moments, too: screwing consumers on medical malpractice, screwing government workers with a wage freeze, screwing us all with the five-year freeze on domestic discretionary spending (which is actually at least a 7 percent cut if you factor inflation in).

Yesterday the Washington Post weighed in with an editorial taking the President to task for not even mentioning gun control, despite having the family of Christina Taylor Green, the nine-year old girl murdered in Tucson sitting with the first lady:

The lack of urgency is appalling. How many more tragedies must occur before the president is moved to act? How many more stricken families will be forced to sit through Washington dog-and-pony shows while those with the power to stem the violence do nothing?

To be fair, some leading progressives had a more positive reaction, including New Republic senior editor John B. Judis, who called the 2011 SOTU Obama’s “best speech as president.” And MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who echoed some of Ed Kilgore’s take, credited the President with “wrenching the center back from the right” and “stopping the country’s rightward drift.”
It may be that President Obama does intend to address all or some of the aforementioned progressive concerns with reform proposals. It’s not always good strategy to state absolutely everything you want or plan to do in one SOTU speech. I just hope he does plan to push forward a saner firearms policy and some of the carrots and sticks to keep jobs in the U.S. Meyerson noted.
Few would doubt, however, that the schitzy conservative response to the President’s address — Ryan’s uninspiring, visionless view of the possibilities ahead and Bachman’s weird, blundering screed — was a mess. Compared to that, at least, progressive and moderate Dems should have no trouble agreeing that President Obama won the day.

Nate Silver has an insightful post, “Did Democrats Give Up in the Gun Control Debate?” up at The New York Times. SIlver explores public attitudes toward gun control measures in light of the history of gun control in America and violent crime rates. Silver doesn’t reach any firm conclusions about future prospects for gun control, other than saying ambivalence among Democrats has given the NRA free reign. But his analysis of public opinion is a good read, especially for gun control advocates in their search for a workable strategy. As Silver expalins,

…According to the General Social Survey, conducted intermittently since 1972, the percentage of Americans who think permits should be required before a gun can be obtained has gradually risen (to 79 percent in 2008 from 72 percent in 1972). Background checks for gun owners are overwhelmingly popular, attracting the support of as many as 90 percent of Americans. And while most Americans say they do not want gun control regulations to become stricter, even fewer — about 10 percent — think they should be made more lax.
Still, the overall pattern is reasonably clear. According to Gallup surveys, for instance, the number of Americans favoring a ban on handguns has been on a long-term decline and is now about 30 percent, down almost 10 percentage points from a decade earlier…

Silver then looks at attitudes in light of gun ownership:

…This has occurred despite gun ownership becoming less common. When the General Social Survey was first conducted in 1973, about half (49 percent) of Americans reported having a firearm in their households. But the fraction was down to 36 percent by 2008

And crime rates:

…it is hard to track any sort of one-to-one relationship between crime rates and public opinion on guns. The rate of violent crime increased steadily in the United States for most of the past half-century, peaking in 1991, before embarking upon a relatively steep decline. But support for gun rights generally increased both as the crime rate was rising and then after it began to fall.

Silver discusses the evolution of the gun control policies of the political parties, noting the hardening of GOP opposition to any form of gun control and the weakening of Democratic support, until the election of President Clinton, when the bold language of the Democratic Party Platform of 1996 put it this way:

Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and George Bush were able to hold the Brady Bill hostage for the gun lobby until Bill Clinton became President. With his leadership, we made the Brady Bill the law of the land. And because we did, more than 60,000 felons, fugitives, and stalkers have been stopped from buying guns. President Clinton led the fight to ban 19 deadly assault weapons, designed for one purpose only — to kill human beings. We oppose efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate sporting purposes, and we are proud that not one hunter or sportsman was forced to change guns because of the assault weapons ban. But we know that the military-style guns we banned have no place on America’s streets, and we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the gun lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to make America safer.

After this high water mark of Democratic support for gun control, the Democratic platforms of ’04 and ’08 barely mentioned the issue. “Democrats concluded that the issue was a political loser for them and they stopped fighting back,” as SIlver puts it.
After Tucson, Democrats are at a crossroads where they must decide whether or not it is OK to ignore the fact that high capacity ammo clips serve no other purpose, other than killing lots of people. Silver presents no poll data about attitudes toward banning the sale of high capacity ammo clips, which has been proposed in legislation by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. It’s highly unlikely that Speaker Boehner and the Republicans will allow the life-saving legislation to move forward in the House.
Progressives and activists should not give up on McCarthy’s bill. As America prepares to celebrate the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday, I remember how the holiday legislation languished in congress for more than a decade before it got any traction. Then, sparked by a well-organized citizens lobby launched in 1979, the bill rolled through congress like a well-oiled juggernaut, compelling even a reluctant Ronald Reagan to sign it in 1983. The two relevant points here are that attitudes can be changed, and worthwhile reforms sometimes take a few years. Activists should refuse to be demoralized by defeats in the short run, while mobilizing for victory in the long run. That’s how meaningful gun control to save lives will come to America.

In assessing the political fallout from the Tucson slayings, one of the few things that could be done to prevent further such tragedies is for traditional media — primarilly television, newspapers and radio — do a better job of calling out politicians who flirt with violent rhetoric.
A few traditional media reporters did express some concern when the rhetoric of violence began to escalate months ago. But more vigilance is clearly needed. Any political figure who even vaguely suggests physical violence against another political opponent ought to be hounded by all media until they apologize for it.
Nor am I including the blogosphere, because quite a few progressive bloggers have done a good job of calling politicians into account for violent rhetoric. The problem is most politicians still feel free to ignore the progressive blogosphere, which exerts its influence more indirectly than does TV, newspapers or radio. Public figures get more worried when a meme adversely reflecting on them gets discussed on the nightly news, morning talk shows. op-ed columns and radio reports.
There is plenty of discussion going on right now in the MSM about the role of violent rhetoric on the part of political figures like Sarah Palin. In six months, however, I would be surprised if Beck, Limbaugh and others are still coolling their propensities for referencing physical harm to their political opponents. The question is, will the MSM, not just the progressive blogosphere, make them account for it?
I’m not going to make the case here that a “violent climate” caused the tragedy. Others have done that about as well as it could be done (see Olbermann here, for example). Regardless, a huge majority of Americans would agree that political leaders need to tone down the ad hominem attacks, at least to the point of not using gun-related imagery in talking about how to deal with political adversaries. Certainly there is no downside to doing so.
I don’t buy the false equivalency argument that progressives have been as guilty as conservatives in suggesting physical violence against political opponents. There may be a couple of examples, but nothing as outrageous as the incidents Vega discussed yesterday. But if we get bipartisan agreement on nothing else, let it be that even vague references encouraging physical violence against political opponents be immediately and loudly condemned by leaders of both parties.
But I would hold Dems to account for weak leadership on gun control, which has become a sort of ‘third rail’ for office holders. I don’t expect most Democratic office-holders to lead the charge for a broad range of gun control measures. Regretfully, America has not yet reached the point where sane gun control reforms can be broadly enacted. But this tragedy certainly underscores the need for a ban on high capacity ammo clips, as has been proposed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who lost her husband to gun violence and saw her son seriously injured by it. That, at the very least, should be doable.

Brian Beutler has a short post up at Talking Points Memo about House Dems use of the “motion to commit” procedural vote to compell Republicans to publicly announce whether they will be accepting the government health care plan provided to members of congress. Beutler quotes the text of the motion:

“Not later than 15 days after taking the oath of office, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall notify the Clerk of whether that Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner elects to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

As you might imagine, the Republicans voted the motion down in lockstep unity. A tell-it-like-it-is translation of their responses to the motion would be something like “How dare those dastardly Dems require us to divulge whether we accept government-provided health care benefits for ourselves, even as we deny it to the American people.”
There will undoubtedly be more such procedural votes from Dems as the House minority, as Beutler points out. Good. They should seize every opportunity to make the Republican account for their hypocrisy in taking government health care, while calling similar coverage for their constituents ‘socialism.”
Democratic members of congress are doing their part to publicize GOP hypocrisy about their health benfits. Now it’s up to Democratic activists, bloggers and rank and file to hound and badger Republicans wherever they make public appearances, for as long as they try to destroy HCR. Make them explain their double standard, as they hem and haw, stutter, dodge and prevaricate — there is no way for them to look good, no credible response they can make in defending ‘coverage for me, but not for thee.’ Always, always use the word ‘hypocrisy’ in confronting them, until it becomes a boilerplate question, even in the MSM.
But don’t stop there. Republican members of congress can only make so many appearances. Democratic activists should raise the hypocritical double standard on call-in shows, in letters to the editor, flyers in the community, emails to friends, facebook, twitter — all the digital platforms. This should not be a hard meme to propagate, because it’s embarrassingly true and easy to understand. Make their hypocrisy resonate until the last attempt to withhold funding for HCR has failed.
A couple of Republican congressmen have mumbled something about how they are “considering” declining the government health care plan. I think one or two has actually done so. Fine. They make the others look even worse, and themselves look like jailhouse converts.
Nailing the Republicans collectively and individually for their personal hypocrisy on HCR is not a substitute for making them explain their opposition to a bill that has several very popular provisions. Thus far, their explanations about how they would put the good stuff in a brand new bill have also been tortured, unconvincing and raise the dreaded spectre of reopening the whole interminable HCR debate. It’s a tough sell, especially if Dems play a strong hand in making them account for their hypocrisy at every opportunity.

Few Democrats need another reason to be outraged by the Citizens United ruling. But Marvin Ammori’s contribution to the Boston Review forum on the Supreme Court decision, entitled “Corruption Economy” should provide cause for serious concern among libertarians and others who consider themselves real “free-market” conservatives and advocates of creative entrepreneurship. Here’s a piece of Ammori’s case:

But Citizens United imperils not only our democracy. It also threatens the U.S. economy. Citizens United adds to the existing institutional tools that encourage a “corruption economy,” long known to waste social resources and reward inefficiency. This economy also systematically disadvantages startups and “disruptive innovators”–companies and individuals whose ideas productively displace entrenched alternatives.
…In 2007 David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times reporter, devoted his book Free Lunch to exploring, in the subtitle’s words, “How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill).” He details how certain laws transfer wealth to the politically powerful by, among other methods, capping corporate liability, shifting tax burdens, and generously subsidizing billionaires at the average citizen’s expense.
Taking this one step further, researchers have attempted to quantify the return-on-investment (ROI) of this corruption. A widely cited study by professors at the Universtiy of Kansas shows a 22,000 percent return on $283 million spent lobbying for tax holidays. Another study demonstrates that large companies got a 600-2000 percent return lobbying for tax breaks. Both of these estimates far eclipse the average ROI for Fortune 500 companies, which is less than 10 percent. As Johnston puts it, corporations can more easily “mine gold from the government treasury than the side of a mountain.”

Ammori then closes the argument as far as ‘upstart’ entrepreneurs are concerned:

….A corruption economy disincentivizes investment in new technologies, human capital, and socially useful products and services. It instead encourages companies to invest in lobbyists, political action committees, and campaign ads…A corruption economy rewards those most adept at the D.C. game, not market competition and innovation. The result is higher prices for inferior products and services.
…In a corruption economy, established companies are given the upper hand. They have legions of lobbyists, revenue to allocate to campaign expenditures, and deep and long relationships with legislators. Upstarts usually have none of that, so established companies use their greater access to government and legal avenues to kill off young competitors. For instance, when a new data format (from home video to YouTube) hits the market, established content providers often file copyright complaints. Following similar logic, established telecom companies attempt to interfere with Internet traffic. This changes the behavior of new companies for the worse. An upstart’s first idea should be a product or service, not an appropriations rider; its first employees should be engineers, inventors, and management, not lobbyists and lawyers.

All of which strengthens the case that President Obama’s next Supreme Court appointment — replacing a retiring Republican, God Willing — ought not only have a progressive record with respect to social issues, but also be a clear and unflagging champion of economic justice for workers and small business people, when pitted against the interests of corporate power. Justice Kagan was a good choice in this regard, and the next nominee ought to be equally opposed to the Citizen’s United ruling.
The Citizens United decision is disastrous for small business conservatives, as well as for Democratic Party liberals. If progressives make the extra effort to insure that this message resonates outside the choir, it could help solidify the Party’s image in a favorable light with a key swing constituency.