Newsflash:
Tuesday, 20 May 2014 01:21

Oligarchy Enshrined

Written by  Cole Stangler | In These Times
David Barrows waves a flag during a protest against money in politics outside the Supreme Court on Oct. 8, 2013. David Barrows waves a flag during a protest against money in politics outside the Supreme Court on Oct. 8, 2013. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Why the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon ruling is good news for the super-rich and bad news for progressive Democrats.

At the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, a conservative election lawyer and a baby-faced electrical engineer from Alabama with a made-for-TV Southern drawl began plotting how to unravel federal campaign finance regulations.

Shaun McCutcheon had one of those “rich people problems”: He wanted to give money to more Republican candidates than the Federal Election Commission allowed. During CPAC’s Ronald Reagan Banquet, he started chatting up activist lawyer Dan Backer, according to The Huffington Post. This was low-hanging fruit, Backer assured him. A well-crafted legal challenge could take out the FEC’s so-called aggregate limits on campaign contributions—rules that blocked individuals from giving more than $48,600 to federal candidates and $74,600 to political parties and PACs in each election cycle.

Sure enough, less than a year after lawyers representing McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee filed a complaint against the FEC, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. On April 2, a 5-to-4 majority sided with the GOP’s budding benefactor, striking down the FEC’s aggregate contribution limits.

The full impact of the ruling won’t be felt until perhaps 2016, when presidential fundraising kicks into high gear. But campaign finance experts agree: McCutcheon v. FEC will encourage more money to flow into electoral campaigns, reduce the number of stakeholders in the American political system and strengthen the hand of party committees on both sides of the aisle. And, according to Supreme Court observers, the nature of the majority’s ruling invites further challenges that could topple what’s left of campaign finance law.

One impact, however, has been overlooked: The court’s ruling could well hurt the electoral prospects of progressive Democrats.

The worst, it seems, is yet to come.

A tilted playing field

The frenzy over the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision often ignored a basic fact: The nation’s campaign finance laws have long favored the rich. Since at least 1976, when the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision struck down campaign spending limits, the wealthy have exercised their First Amendment “speech” rights through a combination of tactics: “soft-money” contributions, self-financed campaigns, and plain old maximum-allowable donations to candidates and parties.

“People who have lots of capital, lots of resources, who want to be involved in the political process have always worked hard to find ways,” says Bob Biersack, a 30-year-veteran of the FEC who’s now a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending. “There have always been ways available to them.”

The Supreme Court has simply afforded our privileged elite more options. Citizens United infamously allows unlimited outside spending on elections. In the 2011-2012 election cycle, Super PACs spent close to$1 billion—including millions from undisclosed donors. Still, that was a fraction of the whopping $7 billion tab for the total election.

McCutcheon opens up more attractive investment opportunities for the politically inclined super-rich, particularly for those who prefer the personal touch of a direct contribution over the anonymity of a super PAC. Whereas a pre-McCutcheon donor was capped at $123,200 total in a given election cycle, she’s now free to spend as she pleases—so long as each donation respects the $5,800-per-candidate-per-racecontribution limit still in effect. As Justice Elena Kagan observed, if one considers each party’s 435 House candidates, 33 Senate candidates, 50 state committees and three main fundraising committees, a single donor can give as much as $3.5 million in direct contributions each cycle.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, about 600 donors gave close to the legal limit of $123,200 in the last election.

The portrait of this donor class is predictable: A Huffington Post analysis that focused on a smaller group of McCutcheon-limit donors found that almost half came from the financial services sector. Others hailed from the energy industry, law practices and miscellaneous business ventures. A solid majority gave to Republicans.

McCutcheon doesn’t just make it easier for the rich to give. It also makes it easier for parties and committees to aggressively court them—something that can’t be said for Citizens United.

The three main fundraising committees of each party no longer have to compete amongst themselves to win the maximum allowable $32,400 contribution from a single donor. Before McCutcheon, contributions to party committees were capped at $32,400 total per election cycle. However, since the ruling, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) can now ask the same Greenwich, Connecticut, hedge-fund manager to write each of them a $32,400 check. (These Democratic organizations declined to comment on how McCutcheon impacts their fundraising strategy.)

The Court’s ruling means that the field of influential political players will continue to shrink, according to Biersack. This trend, already fueled by an unprecedented acceleration of economic inequality, was sent into hyperdrive by Citizens United.

“What [McCutcheon] does is magnify something that was already happening,” Biersack says. “It puts the focus of political professionals of all kinds, including candidates and office-holders, on a very small group of people and institutions that have big capital resources that the political professionals need and want.”

Citizens United introduced Americans to the comically nefarious Super PACMcCutcheon will familiarize voters with newly empowered “joint fundraising committees.” These committees have been popular among the major fundraisers of both parties because they are able to sweep up large sums of money at a time. For example, in 2012 donors were able to write a single megacheck to joint fundraising committees, such as the Romney Victory Fund, which then divvied up the donations among all players: the presidential campaign, the national party committee and participating state party committees. Often used at events featuring candidate appearances, joint-fund-raising committees allow less prominent candidates or state committees to piggyback on the big name draws that command the fat checks. The old aggregate limits restricted how many entities could link up under a single joint fundraising committee. However, under McCutcheon, these super committees have become cash-guzzling monstrosities capable of swallowing up a seven-figure check from a single donor in one big gulp, then regurgitating it out to all participating committee members. Party officials can now “essentially go to one donor who’s willing and able to give $3.5 million, and ask for that kind of money dispersed to various candidates,” says John Bonifaz, president of Free Speech for People, a group that advocates for public financing of elections.

The $3.5-million-check scenario is unlikely, as a committee would need to include all the party’s federal candidates. But the larger the pool of participants in these committees grows, the larger the checks can be. On April 9, one week after the ruling, the three main Republican fundraising committees—the Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC)—joined forces to form the Republican Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee. The Victory Fund is allowed to accept a single contribution of $97,200 and distribute it evenly among the participating committees. On April 15, a group of GOP senators formed their own joint-fundraising committee that’s capable of reeling in a $98,800 check from a single donor.

This pushes up the price that donors are expected to pay for access to elected officials, says Lisa Rosenberg, a former staffer for then-Sen. John Kerry (D- Mass.) and a lobbyist for the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for more transparency in government.

“You’re going to get these members of Congress, elected officials, or would-be elected officials, soliciting these million-dollar checks,” says Rosenberg. “ ‘Oh come to my joint-fundraising committee on behalf of all these candidates.’ That’s going to be the invitation from John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi.”

Bonifaz agrees: “If you’re a donor who wants to maintain influence and access with those in leadership, you’re likely to give at that level. It means that we have increased even further the kind of disproportionate influence the very wealthy have over our politics.”

Full speed ahead

McCutcheon leaves existing campaign finance law on very shaky ground. The Chief Justice John Roberts-led majority dismissed the notion that limits on campaign contributions are necessary to ensure equality of representation.

“It would seem as if this court believes there should effectively be special speech rights for the wealthiest people in America,” says Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, which supports electoral reforms to reduce the amount of money in politics. “They have so turned the speech argument around that they’re saying your right to speech is dependent on the size of your wallet.”

Rick Hasen, University of California-Irvine law professor who specializes in campaign finance regulation, predicts that McCutcheon “will be an essential building block to challenging other campaign contribution limits.”

McCutcheon drastically narrows the legal grounds on which the FEC can enforce any contribution limits. Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Court has justified its regulation of campaign finance on the basis of preventing “corruption or the appearance of corruption.” In McCutcheon, Roberts adopted a more stringent definition of corruption as a quid pro quo—a direct exchange of money for a specific vote.

This quid pro quo standard may provide the justification to challenge any contribution limits. “That lays the groundwork for the argument that we have laws like that—they’re called bribery laws,” says Nyhart. “So why do we need anything more?”

Hasen agrees, saying that Roberts’ opinion reads like an invitation to challenge the existing bans on soft-money contributions to political parties. Until 2002, outside groups like corporations and unions were able to give unlimited donations directly to parties, which the parties would then disburse. In response to critiques that such donations circumvented campaign finance law by allowing wealthy donors to make indirect donations to candidates, Congress outlawed these types of “soft-money” contributions. That’s part of the reason Super PACs cannot directly coordinate with candidates or parties.

So what’s going to fall first? Contribution limits to candidates or soft-money donations to parties?

“Part of it depends upon what gets challenged,” says Hasen. “The lawyers [will decide] which cases to file when. But I do think that the Roberts Court has been moving slowly, but steadily, toward knocking these things down. So if we have the same nine justices the next time these issues face the court, I expect them to fall.” 

Underdogs beware

After Citizens United, progressives warned that Republicans were on the verge of buying the presidency, the House and the Senate. In 2010 and 2012, at least, this turned out not to be the case. Much like its landmark predecessor, McCutcheon is unlikely to threaten the ability of the Democratic Party to win federal elections.

The current Republican dominance in Congress is, above all, a structural phenomenon, argues Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, which advocates for voting rights and electoral reform. Thanks to how House districting works, rural, conservative-leaning parts of the country are overrepresented, stifling the ambitions of the nation’s liberal-leaning, mostly urban-dwelling majority. Barring sudden demographic changes or electoral reforms (such as proportional representation or a national popular vote) or, say, a massive popular movement that threatens the two-party stranglehold—conservative America is likely to remain overrepresented in Congress.

Rather than swing Democratic seats to the GOP, McCutcheon is far more likely to impact what kind of Democrat is able to compete in the donation-grubbing, free-spending, advertising-saturated, deeply perverse world of 21st-century American elections. Two groups in each party, it seems, stand to gain most: Candidates who can count on the support of party leadership and those who rely heavily on large individual contributions. Each of those scenarios is bad news for progressives.

“There’s more big money. Big money is never on the side of progressive candidates. Never,” says Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.).“Big money is always going to support big money shills, and progressives are not big money shills.”

Left-leaning House Democrats are often at odds with their party’s leadership. Sometimes that tension spills over to fundraising and campaigning. In 2010, for example, Congress watchers reported that the DCCC, under the leadership of Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) abandoned one of the most progressive members of the House— Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) vice-chair Grayson. Grayson lost badly to a Tea Party challenger, but won his seat back in 2012. Ongoing intra-party tension could leave some CPC members on the outside of key joint fundraising committees, which in the post-McCutcheon world will only grow more powerful.

As it is, incumbent progressives trail the rest of the Democratic Party’s representatives, both in total amount raised from all sources (PACs, committees and individuals) and in the percentage of total donations that come from wealthier donors. In These Times compared the types of donations received by the 68-member CPC with those of the 55-member New Democrat Coalition (NDC), a proudly neoliberal House caucus that bills itself as the “pro-growth, fiscally responsible wing of the Democratic Party.” During the 2012 cycle, the CPC representatives reeled in an average of $584,000 in individual contributions of more than $200. Those contributions made up an average of 42 percent of total contributions per candidate. NDC members, on the other hand, took in an average of more than $1 million in such contributions—48 percent of total contributions per candidate.

That data belies the common myth that for every Charles and David Koch, there’s a Hollywood billionaire bankrolling an army of liberals fighting his or her pet causes. Tom Steyer, the hedge-fund manager-cum-environmental activist, is the exception, not the rule.

“We have made tremendous strides over the past several years in establishing smaller contributions as one of the foundations of successful fundraising for progressives or a progressive party and McCutcheon sets that back,” says Grayson. “McCutcheon changes the incentives to once again have many members of Congress and the parties as a whole focus their attention on large contributions rather than small contributions.”

Because McCutcheon disproportionally empowers large individual donors, it thereby strengthens the base of the Democratic Party’s neoliberal wing—the ideological heirs of the Clinton-era, pro-corporate Democratic Leadership Council.
 
“The incentives have changed to basically induce me and other members to spend more time with big donors,” says Grayson. “I may or may not. It’s a decision we have to make.”
Following the money

By fueling symbiotic relations between party committees and their big donors, McCutcheon will likely make it more difficult for progressive Democratic challengers to unseat incumbents—whether they’re Democrats or Republicans.

The DCCC can be tough on some elected Democratic members of Congress, but we should pity the insurgents. “Where they’re ruthless and they really do a hatchet job, is on candidates,” says Howie Klein, a Los Angeles-based blogger who covers Democratic Party politics from his blog, Down with Tyranny!. Klein documents how, every two years, the DCCC overlooks promising progressive challengers in favor of milquetoast centrists. Ground zero this year may well be California’s 31st district, in the state’s Inland Empire region—arguably the most solidly Democratic district in the country with a Republican representative. The Democratic Super PAC, House Majority PAC, has called GOP Congressman Gary Miller “the most endangered Republican incumbent in the country.”

Instead of backing progressive challenger Eloise Gomez-Reyes, a former labor lawyer who calls for expanding Social Security benefits, the DCCC is throwing its weight behind Pete Aguilar, a banking lobbyist-turned-mayor of Redlands. As one of the 16 “top-tier” candidates who are part of the DCCC’s “Jumpstart” program, Aguilar has received “financial, communications, operational and strategic support” from the party committee since last May. In the last election, the DCCC-endorsed Aguilar somehow managed to place third in the Democratic-leaning district’s crowded “jungle primary” (which lumps together candidates from all parties), eliminating Democrats from the two-candidate November run-off and gifting the seat to the GOP. Post-McCutcheon, the DCCC will likely have more money for races like this and be able to more effectively muscle out primary candidates whose populist credentials it doesn’t like.

Rick Weiland, a left-leaning former adviser to Tom Daschle running for the Senate in South Dakota, knows what it’s like to be on the wrong side of those in the Democratic Party leadership who control the purse strings. Last year, Harry Reid and the DSCC tried to recruit a former U.S. representative, the centrist Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, to replace Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson, who is retiring following a stroke. But in May 2013, when Weiland announced his bid for the soon-to-be-open seat, the former congresswoman backed off. Reid has apparently held a grudge against Weiland ever since.

Today, Weiland is the only Democratic Senate candidate not to be formally endorsed by the DSCC. The NRSC has already held a fundraiser for his leading opponent in the GOP primary, Mike Rounds. The former governor has raised close to $2.9 million; Weiland’s campaign coffers stand at a paltry $740,000. (Weiland also appears to be a casualty of an ego-driven pissing match between former Senate Majority Leader Daschle and current Senate Majority Leader Reid.)

“The problem of big money and its effects on public policy is the reason I got into this race,” says Weiland, who opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, backs single-payer healthcare, and rails against Big Oil and Big Pharma. “It’s really at the cornerstone of my campaign.”

The O-word

With fewer and fewer political players in the game, more and more progressives are talking “oligarchy.” Chief among them is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. He tells In These Times that the recent Supreme Court rulings are “paving the way for oligarchy in America.” Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow, in a recent interview at the Economic Policy Institute, made a similar warning based on the nation’s rising economic inequality: “If that kind of concentration of wealth continues, then we get to be more and more an oligarchical country, a country that’s run from the top.”Jeffrey Winters, a political science professor at Northwestern, maintains we’re already there. (Winters was the author of In These Times’ March 2012 cover story, “Oligarchy in the U.S.A.”) He describes the United States as a “civil oligarchy”—as opposed to, say, “warring oligarchies” like 19th century Appalachia, or “ruling oligarchies” like ancient Athens and Rome. Oligarchy at its core, he says, is the “politics of wealth defense.”

Results from a forthcoming study support Winters’ assessment. Political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern have found that wealthy people and corporate interest groups exert far more influence over policy than average American citizens. By measuring the correlation between the political preferences of various income levels and 1,799 policy outcomes between 1981 and 2002, their fall 2014 article in Perspectives on Politics quantifies a fact that has long fallen on deaf ears in the United States: Political power is concentrated at the very top of the economic ladder.

Gilens says he hesitates to use the word “oligarchy” because it implies a group of a certain size and his data doesn’t show exactly how large a group of affluent individuals “have real influence over government policy-making.” He and Page prefer to talk about what they term “economic elite domination.”

Because of limited data, Gilens and Page only considered the policy preferences of the top 10th income percentile. But, says Gilens,“It would be surprising if within that group of people in the top 10 percent, that those in the top 1 percent didn’t have more influence than the remainder, and of course, those in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent even more influence.”

The study also doesn’t examine the mechanisms by which the rich exert their influence over public policy. Nevertheless, Gilens says he’s been able to rule out other potential factors based on prior research—such as, say, disproportionate levels of political engagement, interest or knowledge.


“The bottom line is that money in politics, generally, and campaign contributions, third-party spending and so on, is absolutely central in explaining the greater influence of people with money,” says Gilens.

The fight back

No one-shot remedy will level the electoral playing field. But an increasing consensus holds that a constitutional amendment strengthening campaign finance regulations is a necessary first step.

“I don’t know what the Congress could do to fix this that the Court wouldn’t rule as unconstitutional,” says South Dakota’s Weiland. “So we’ve got to change the Constitution. Then we can take a look at the best path forward to reform how these campaigns are funded and waged.”

Weiland says he’s handed out thousands of calling cards that, on the back, include his preferred language for an amendment: “So that the votes of all, rather than the wealth of the few, shall direct the course of this Republic, Congress shall have the power to limit the raising and spending of money, with respect to federal elections.”

Such an amendment would overturn the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo ruling in 1976, which allows for unlimited campaign spending. Without spending limits, it’s more difficult to make the constitutional case for contribution limits.

The Senate recently agreed to allow a floor vote on such an amendment—the first time that’s happened since Citizens United triggered calls to update the Constitution.

Others believe any such amendment needs to go even further. They say the problem lies in the concept of corporate personhood—a court precedent that goes back to 1886 and Santa Clary County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Move to Amend, a coalition that includes groups like CODEPINK, the Sierra Club, Progressive Democrats of America and Free Speech for People, calls for a constitutional amendment to establish that “money is not speech” and that “human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.”

No matter how an eventual amendment reads, the road to ratification will be long. In order to be considered, a constitutional amendment needs to first earn the support of a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the nation’s state legislatures can request that a constitutional convention be held. But for an amendment to actually be ratified, it has to win approval from three-fourths, or 38, of the nation’s state legislatures.

Free Speech for People’s Bonifaz takes the long view: “In our history as a country, we have dealt with these kinds of major threats to our democracy in the past via a constitutional amendment.”

Seven previous constitutional amendments, he says, have addressed “egregious” Supreme Court rulings. The 19th Amendment, for example, overturned prior Supreme Court rulings that prevented women from exercising the right to vote.

“The power that we as a people have under Article 5 is designed to ensure that when the Supreme Court engages in this kind of egregious decision-making, or when we face some other kind of threat to the franchise and must lift up the promise of American democracy, that we have that power to use it. And I think we’re in that historic moment again.”

Nick Nyhart, meanwhile, offers an analysis that hasn’t exactly stood the test of time—the worse things get, the greater the chances of a popular backlash. He points to the demonstrations that followed theMcCutcheon decision. In some 150 towns and cities across the country, thousands of people turned out on short notice to protest the ruling.

“The good news,” says Nyhart, “is that as the system gets worse, as people see these headlines about individuals being able to give $3.5million directly to candidates through a bundling process … and see the tens of millions that other people are putting into politics, and the hundreds of millions being bundled by people like the Koch brothers, there is a reaction.”

Popular outrage may well be mounting. But time isn’t on the side of reformers. Each election cycle in the current climate threatens to make elected officials and political parties more beholden to big-pocketed contributors, and thus less likely to reform the system. Meanwhile, the Roberts majority has yet to consider a campaign contribution limit that it hasn’t decided to strike down.

One imagines the corporate donor class salivating: Who will be the next McCutcheon?

Cole Stangler is an In These Times staff writer and Schumann Fellow based in Washington D.C., covering labor, trade, foreign policy and environmental issues. His reporting has appeared in The Huffington Post and The American Prospect, and has been cited in The New York Times. He can be reached at cole[at]inthesetimes.com. Follow him on Twitter @colestangler.

 

Original article on In These Times

Read 6061 times Last modified on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 01:29

End Wars and Occupations Articles

  • Iraq/Syria Air Strikes and Arms Shipments Opponents Host Press Conference
    Iraq/Syria Air Strikes and Arms Shipments Opponents Host Press Conference

    Washington, DC -- Representatives from several organizations will gather at 11:30 am on Wednesday, September 17 at the House Triangle to respond to the President's plan to bomb Iraq and Syria. Speakers include Andrea Miller of Progressive Democrats of America, Stephen Miles of the coalition Win Without War, Ret. Colonel Ann Wright of Veterans for Peace, Medea Benjamin of CODEPINK, and Alli McCracken of the youth group No Future in War.

    Written on Thursday, 18 September 2014 16:31 Read more...
  • Progressive Caucus to Speaker Boehner: Stop Wasting Tax Dollars on Benghazi Committee
    Progressive Caucus to Speaker Boehner: Stop Wasting Tax Dollars on Benghazi Committee

    Washington, D.C.–Today, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Co-Chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) sent Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) a letter urging him to create a Select Committee on Income Inequality instead of spending as much as 3.3 million tax dollars on another investigation into Benghazi. An analysisfrom Think Progress shows the Republican-led House of Representatives is on track to spend more investigating Benghazi than it does on nine other House committees.

    Written on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 14:51 Read more...
  • Since 9-11 America's Insane Foreign Policy -- Continued Under Obama -- Has Killed a Million and Created ISIS
    Since 9-11 America's Insane Foreign Policy -- Continued Under Obama -- Has Killed a Million and Created ISIS Thirteen years ago, a draft dodger from Texas stood on a pile of rubble in New York City and promised, "The people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." Of course, the people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center could not hear anybody, as their remains were buried in the rubble beneath Bush's feet.
    Written on Saturday, 13 September 2014 14:45 Read more...
  • The Speech on Diplomacy That Obama Should Have Given Last Night
    The Speech on Diplomacy That Obama Should Have Given Last Night Too often in the United States—most especially since 9/11—we equate “doing something” with “doing something military.” George W. Bush gave a traumatized, near-paralyzed US public two options: we either go to war, or we let ‘em get away with it. Faced with that choice, it was hardly surprising that 88 percent or so of people in this country chose war.
    Written on Saturday, 13 September 2014 14:35 Read more...
  • On Matters of War, the President Can't Go it Alone
    On Matters of War, the President Can't Go it Alone With respect to the growing conflict with the insurgent Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), my message to the White House and to Speaker Boehner is clear. Further U.S. military escalation must not happen without the expressed approval of Congress. the Constitution is crystal clear: Only Congress shall have the power to declare war.
    Written on Thursday, 04 September 2014 11:56 Read more...
  • Bipartisan Coalition Calls for Authorization Vote Regarding Iraq
    Bipartisan Coalition Calls for Authorization Vote Regarding Iraq Washington, DC – Yesterday, Congressman Walter Jones, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Jim McGovern sent a letter to Speaker Boehner calling for debate and vote on an authorization for the use of military force in Iraq when the House returns on September 8th.
    Written on Thursday, 28 August 2014 20:16 Read more...
  • Rep. Ellison Statement on the Announcement of an Open-Ended Ceasefire Agreement Between Israel and Hamas
    Rep. Ellison Statement on the Announcement of an Open-Ended Ceasefire Agreement Between Israel and Hamas

    MINNEAPOLIS—Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) released the following statement today after Israeli and Hamas officials announced they had agreed to an open-ended ceasefire.

    “I am happy and relieved with yesterday’s ceasefire agreement,” Rep. Ellison said. “I call on all parties to comply with the agreement and refrain from further violence. It is time to move forward with negotiations and diplomacy that will ultimately end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Written on Wednesday, 27 August 2014 15:12 Read more...
  • Hamas and Israel Agree to Extended Gaza Cease-Fire
    Hamas and Israel Agree to Extended Gaza Cease-Fire

    GAZA CITY — Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday reached a long-term cease-fire after seven weeks of fighting, according to officials on both sides, halting the longest, bloodiest battle either side has experienced in years — but without resolving many of the bigger issues underlying the conflict.

    Written on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 17:09 Read more...
  • $1.5 Trillion and Counting: What New Involvement in Iraq Means for Federal Spending
    $1.5 Trillion and Counting: What New Involvement in Iraq Means for Federal Spending As President Obama allows a trickle of troops back into Iraq and continues to ramp up air strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Americans are wary about our role in a conflict most think we never should have started in the first place. Polls show that while Americans are divided on new airstrikes in Iraq, most people are against sending troops back. And while these strikes might seem targeted, mission creep is a very real threat in Iraq.
    Written on Thursday, 21 August 2014 00:22 Read more...
  • McGovern Demands Full Debate and Vote on Iraq
    McGovern Demands Full Debate and Vote on Iraq

    When Congress returns from recess on September 8, will they authorize the New Iraq War? That's the question some anti-war groups are asking their representatives now home in their districts. Rep. Jim McGovern is demanding "a full debate and a vote whether to authorize the war," which has been escalating during the Congressional absence.

    Written on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 22:10 Read more...
  • Congress Needs to Assert Checks and Balances on Any New Iraq Mission
    Congress Needs to Assert Checks and Balances on Any New Iraq Mission

    It is not a lack of sympathy with the historic and current circumstance of Iraq’s religious minorities—or of other persecuted peoples in that traumatized country—that leads some of the most humane and responsible members of Congress to say that President Obama must seek approval from the House and Senate before committing the United States military to a new Iraq mission.

    Written on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 15:38 Read more...
  • Against U.S. Escalation in Iraq
    Against U.S. Escalation in Iraq The Obama administration seems poised to bomb insurgent-controlled areas of Iraq in another escalation of the deepening quagmire.
    Written on Friday, 08 August 2014 13:25 Read more...
  • Gaza Initiative - PDA End War & Occupation team
    Gaza Initiative - PDA End War & Occupation team

    PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) shares the horror of the world at the slaughter of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza. We condemn violence against civilians by all sides.

    Written on Wednesday, 06 August 2014 00:43 Read more...
  • Progressive Democrats of America Emergency Statement calling for a ceasefire in Gaza
    Progressive Democrats of America Emergency Statement calling for a ceasefire in Gaza

    Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) strongly endorses the statement of our Advisory Board Member Congresswoman Barbara Lee  who expressed grave concerns about the "violence and loss of life in Israel and Gaza." We agree with Rep. Lee that, "this horrific violence does nothing to enhance the security of Israelis or Palestinians," and we join her calling for a diplomatic solution to ensure lasting security." Rep. Lee once again is the voice of reason saying, "We need strong diplomatic intervention by the US and regional partners to help establish an immediate ceasefire that allows for the negotiations of a permanent and peaceful settlement."

    Furthermore, we endorse our Advisory Board Member Congressman Keith Ellison's demand that Israel and Egypt end the Gaza blockade to achieve peace. 

    Written on Saturday, 02 August 2014 14:47 Read more...
  • End the Gaza Blockade to Achieve Peace
    End the Gaza Blockade to Achieve Peace It seems as though each day brings new horrors and heartbreaks in the Holy Land. More than 1,000 dead. Gazan children blown up on the beach. A U.N. shelter hit. Two-thirds of Israelis living in fear from indiscriminate rocket fire launched by Hamas.
    Written on Friday, 01 August 2014 13:42 Read more...
  • A Ceasefire and Lasting Peace: Why Israel and Hamas Must Agree to an Immediate Ceasefire, and Israelis and Palestinians Must Sign and Successfully Implement A Final Status “Land For Peace” Agreement Now
    A Ceasefire and Lasting Peace: Why Israel and Hamas Must Agree to an Immediate Ceasefire, and Israelis and Palestinians Must Sign and Successfully Implement A Final Status “Land For Peace” Agreement Now

    PDAers have, with the rest of the world, reacted with outrage and heartbreak to the violence in Israel and Gaza.  Board members like Medea Benjamin have worked for decades to bring attention to that area of the world, to its crying need for peace with justice. PDA was founded during the 2004 Democratic Convention in opposition to the Iraq War, which was being silenced by “official” party leaders. Our Inside/Outside strategy brought street heat to the suites, opening up our political process to the nonviolent call of Dr. Martin Luther King: turn from perpetual war to meeting human need. Nonviolence grounds all our policy advocacy: Healthcare Not Warfare; Windmills Not Weapons.

    Written on Saturday, 26 July 2014 13:06 Read more...
  • Congresswoman Lee Praises Passage of Bipartisan Resolution to Stop Endless War in Iraq
    Washington DC – Today, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan McGovern-Jones-Lee resolution which requires the President to seek Congressional authorization before deploying armed services engaged in combat operations in Iraq.
    Written on Saturday, 26 July 2014 00:02 Read more...
  • SALAAM and SHALOM: Joint Statement on Israel/Gaza
    SALAAM and SHALOM: Joint Statement on Israel/Gaza The current military operations in Israel and the Gaza strip should disturb all people of faith. The only moral path to a solution between Israelis and Palestinians (Israeli Jewish/Muslim/Christian and Palestinian Muslim/Christian) will be dialogue and negotiation.
    Written on Friday, 25 July 2014 22:36 Read more...
  • Congresswoman Lee Praises Passage of Bipartisan Resolution to Stop Endless War in Iraq
    Congresswoman Lee Praises Passage of Bipartisan Resolution to Stop Endless War in Iraq

    Washington DC – Today, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan McGovern-Jones-Lee resolution which requires the President to seek Congressional authorization before deploying armed services engaged in combat operations in Iraq.

    Written on Friday, 25 July 2014 20:06 Read more...
  • Against Intervention in Iraq
    Against Intervention in Iraq

    The stunning military advance into cities in northern and central Iraq by an Al Qaeda offshoot, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—backed by some of Iraq's Sunni tribal paramilitary forces and a militia tied to remnants of the deposed Baath party—compounds Iraq's long-running tragedy. 

    Written on Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:10 Read more...
  • Israel: Stop the Invasion of Gaza, Stop the Bombing of Gaza, Free the Palestinian Prisoners
    Israel: Stop the Invasion of Gaza, Stop the Bombing of Gaza, Free the Palestinian Prisoners

    According to Ha'aretz correspondent Amira Hass, the [Israeli Defense Force] ] IDF has been conducting mass arrests in the West Bank, between 10 and 30 every day. Twenty-four of the arrested are members of the Palestinian parliament from Hamas' Change and Reform party. The number of those arrested since the kidnapping and murder of the Israeli teens has already exceeded 1,000. The Palestinians are convinced that most of those detained have nothing to do with the kidnapping and that these are mainly political arrests for purposes of intimidation and revenge.

    Written on Sunday, 20 July 2014 20:43 Read more...
  • PDA Advisory Board Members Urge Cease-Fire Between Israel and Palestine
    PDA Advisory Board Members Urge Cease-Fire Between Israel and Palestine

    PDA Advisory Board members Reps. John Conyers, Keith Ellison, and Barbara Lee joined 3 congressional colleagues--Reps. Jim Moran, Hank Johnson, and Alan Lowenthal--calling upon President Obama and Secretary Kerry to "redouble" their efforts to urge Israeli and Palestinian leaders to reach a cease-fire agreement. The full text of their letter is below, and a signed PDF can be found here.

    Written on Friday, 18 July 2014 22:35 Read more...
  • Bipartisan Letter Calls for Congressional Authorization before Any Military Action in Iraq
    Bipartisan Letter Calls for Congressional Authorization before Any Military Action in Iraq

    80 Members of Congress Write to the President on Iraq

    Washington, DC – Today, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA13), Congressman Scott Rigell (R-VA02) and seventy other Members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to seek Congressional approval before taking any military action in Iraq.

    Written on Friday, 04 July 2014 00:10 Read more...
  • Immediate Action Needed! Stop Iraq Escalation!
    Immediate Action Needed! Stop Iraq Escalation!


    Please act now! We need your Congress member's signature on the Lee-Rigell Letter opposing a military attack on Iraq. Consult the list (see below). If your member of Congress is not there, call the Congressional switchboard ASAP (before Close of Business July, 2nd) and ask them to sign on to the Lee-Rigell Letter. Republicans may be willing to sign on, so it's worth trying them as well. The Switchboard number is 202-224-3121. Tell them to contact Rep. Barbara Lee's staffer Monica Pham at  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

    Written on Tuesday, 01 July 2014 22:19 Read more...
  • The President Has No Mandate to Bomb Iraq or Syria
    The President Has No Mandate to Bomb Iraq or Syria

    At this writing, President Obama has neither the legal nor the political mandate to conduct airstrikes in Iraq or Syria.

    On Thursday night, 182 Members of the House voted yes on Representative Barbara Lee's amendment defunding the use of the 2002 Iraq Authorization for the Use Military Force. 

    Written on Friday, 20 June 2014 18:00 Read more...
  • BREAKING: House To Push Back Against Military Action in Iraq
    BREAKING: House To Push Back Against Military Action in Iraq

    Members of Congress want to send a clear message to Obama: They won’t stand for another war.

    After a recent string of insurgent attacks from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the northern part of Iraq, President Obama told Congress on Monday night that he will order 275 troops to the country to protect American personnel and the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. 

    Written on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 18:49 Read more...
  • Voices from Iraq: 'We have lived enough years of revenge and tyranny'
    Voices from Iraq: 'We have lived enough years of revenge and tyranny'

    Residents of Mosul and Samarra, and a spokesman for a militant group, speak about their experience of the latest conflict

    Written on Monday, 16 June 2014 11:08 Read more...
  • Returning to a Peacetime Military Budget.
    Returning to a Peacetime Military Budget.

    Why is Congress trying to allocate $601 billion to the military?

     

    Next week, Congress will begin debate on a roughly$601 billion Pentagon budget for FY2015.  Before we let this pass unchallenged, let's take a few minutes to put it in some historical perspective.


    Written on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 22:15 Read more...
  • 93 Countries Who Have Changed Their Minds About Obama
    93 Countries Who Have Changed Their Minds About Obama

    During the Bush years, people all over the world were horrified by America's aggression, human rights abuses and militarism. By 2008, only one in three people around the world approved of the job performance of U.S. leaders. The election of President Obama broadcast his message of hope and change far beyond U.S. shores, and Gallup's 2009 U.S.-Global Leadership Project (USGLP) recorded a sharp rise in global public approval of U.S. leadership to 49 percent.

    Written on Thursday, 01 May 2014 12:44 Read more...
  • America's Coup Machine: Destroying Democracy Since 1953
    America's Coup Machine: Destroying Democracy Since 1953

    U.S. efforts to overthrow foreign governments leave the world less peaceful, less just and less hopeful.

    Soon after the 2004 U.S. coup to depose President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti, I heard Aristide's lawyer Ira Kurzban speaking in Miami.  He began his talk with a riddle: "Why has there never been a coup in Washington D.C.?"  The answer: "Because there is no U.S. Embassy in Washington D.C."  This introduction was greeted with wild applause by a mostly Haitian-American audience who understood it only too well.

    Written on Thursday, 10 April 2014 19:30 Read more...
  • The Pentagon's Phony Budget War
    The Pentagon's Phony Budget War

    Or How the U.S. Military Avoided Budget Cuts, Lied About Doing So, Then Asked for Billions More

    Washington is pushing the panic button, claiming austerity is hollowing out our armed forces and our national security is at risk. That was the message Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel delivered last week when he announced that the Army would shrink to levels not seen since before World War II.

    Written on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 18:57 Read more...
  • The Pentagon's Phony Budget War
    The Pentagon's Phony Budget War

    Washington is pushing the panic button, claiming austerity is hollowing out our armed forces and our national security is at risk. That was the message Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel delivered last week when he announced that the Army would shrink to levels not seen since before World War II. Headlines about this crisis followed in papers like the New York Timesand members of Congress issued statements swearing that they would never allow our security to be held hostage to the budget-cutting process.

    Written on Friday, 07 March 2014 00:44 Read more...
  • 35 Countries Where the U.S. Has Supported Fascists, Drug Lords and Terrorists
    35 Countries Where the U.S. Has Supported Fascists, Drug Lords and Terrorists

    The U.S. is backing Ukraine's extreme right-wing Svoboda party and violent neo-Nazis whose armed uprising paved the way for a Western-backed coup. Events in the Ukraine are giving us another glimpse through the looking-glass of U.S. propaganda wars against fascism, drugs and terrorism. The ugly reality behind the mirror is that the U.S. government has a long and unbroken record of working with fascists, dictators, druglords and state sponsors of terrorism in every region of the world in its elusive but relentless quest for unchallenged global power.  

    Written on Friday, 07 March 2014 00:20 Read more...
  • We Need To End the Disastrous Failure Of The War On Terror
    We Need To End the Disastrous Failure Of The War On Terror

    America's military adventures have fueled a global explosion of terrorism and a historic breakdown of law and order.

    Twelve years into America's "war on terror," it is time to admit that it has failed catastrophically, unleashing violence, war and instability in an "arc of terror" stretching from West Africa to the Himalayas and beyond. 

    Written on Tuesday, 04 February 2014 01:28 Read more...
  • Iran Breakthrough a Triumph for Pragmatists and a Defeat for the Warmongers
    Iran Breakthrough a Triumph for Pragmatists and a Defeat for the Warmongers

    The implementation of the Iran accord Monday signaled a modest but still important sea change in that country’s relationship with the world. As with all good diplomacy, the deal is a win-win for Iran and the United Nations Security Council’s permanent members.

    Written on Thursday, 23 January 2014 15:29 Read more...
  • Syria Peace Talks: Bitter Exchanges Mark First Day Of Negotiations
     Syria Peace Talks: Bitter Exchanges Mark First Day Of Negotiations

    MONTREUX, Switzerland (AP) — The United Nations is taking a day to see if there is enough common ground between Syrian President Bashar Assad's government and the opposition to talk directly for the first time since the rebellion began in 2011.

    Written on Thursday, 23 January 2014 15:23 Read more...
  • No Seat For Syrian Women at the Peace Talks
    No Seat For Syrian Women at the Peace Talks

    The talks in Syria began today, with the Syrian government and opposition exchanging accusations and invectives. Missing was the voice of nonviolent civilians, especially women, even through they have been trying for months to have a seat at the table.

    Written on Wednesday, 22 January 2014 17:16 Read more...
  • Drones Will Be Tested in 10 US States - Is Yours One?
    Drones Will Be Tested in 10 US States - Is Yours One?

    At least ten states will be sites for testing drones — unmanned aircraft — in the next couple of years, the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) announced on Monday. Six institutions have been authorized to operate test locations for the use of drones and for studying how they will interact with air traffic systems.

    Written on Sunday, 05 January 2014 20:49 Read more...
  • Demilitarizing the Economy: A Movement is Underway
    Demilitarizing the Economy: A Movement is Underway

    As we end the longest period of war in our history, we should be entering a period of postwar downsizing - but what about the communities dependent on the massive post-9/11 military budget?

    End wars. Shrink the Pentagon budget. Reinvest the savings in neglected domestic priorities. It’s a logical progression. Right?

    Written on Friday, 20 December 2013 00:00 Read more...
  • Congresswoman Lee on Nelson Mandela’s Passing
    Congresswoman Lee on Nelson Mandela’s Passing

    Washington, D.C.— Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) issued the following statement on the passing of former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela:

    Written on Friday, 06 December 2013 17:29 Read more...
  • Anti-Drone Movement Speaks: 'End the Secrecy, No to Kill List'
    Anti-Drone Movement Speaks: 'End the Secrecy, No to Kill List' Activists from across the globe kicked off the largest-ever anti-drone summit Friday with a boisterous White House rally then march to the headquarters of one of the most notorious weapons manufacturers in the world.
    Written on Saturday, 16 November 2013 01:11 Read more...
  • US built 'powerful organs of state terrorism' in Iraq
    US built 'powerful organs of state terrorism' in Iraq

    Iraq is still suffering from the US invasion because the apparatus of state oppression and terror is still in place, killing people every day. But few in the US seem to realize the scale of the war crimes committed in Iraq, an expert author told RT.

    Written on Saturday, 09 November 2013 19:49 Read more...
  • The Tragic History of U.S. Military Supremacy
    The Tragic History of U.S. Military Supremacy

    Having the most expensive and destructive military does not make the American people safer. The idea of U.S. "national security" seems inextricably entangled with the notion of "military supremacy."

    Written on Friday, 25 October 2013 02:20 Read more...
  • Reading Obama’s Iran Speech
    Reading Obama’s Iran Speech

    All of a sudden we’re talking to Iran. Now, granted, that shouldn’t be such an astonishing bombshell. But given the reality of the last several decades, it pretty much is. And that’s all good. It’s been too long coming, it’s still too hesitant, there’s still too much hinting about military force behind it… but we’re talking. Foreign minister to foreign minister, Kerry to Zarif, it’s all a good sign.

    Written on Thursday, 26 September 2013 01:36 Read more...
  • Beating Swords Into Solar Panels
    Beating Swords Into Solar Panels

    A trillion dollars.  It's a lot of money.  In a year it could send 127 million college students to school, provide health insurance for 206 million people, or pay the salaries of seven million schoolteachers and seven million police officers.

    Written on Thursday, 19 September 2013 23:17 Read more...

PDA Radio

Listen "Live" Wednesday, 9/17/2014 @ 8pm
RevYearwood

Rev. Lennox Yearwood
Special Guest Bill McKibben

Call In Number 347-202-0385

Sign the ERA Petition

ERADemandButton

On Friday, September 12th more than 150 activists will go to DC and Demand that their Senators and Representatives support removing the ratification deadline from the ERA (SJ Res 15 and HJ Res 113)

Button-SignERAPetition

Sign the TPP Fast Track Petitions

MoveOn.org Petition - Congress Don't Renew Fast Track

Public Citizen Petition - Congress Must Reject Fast Track Authority

MoveOn.org Petition - Stop the Trans Pacific Partnership

CREDO Petition - Stop the Massive Corporate Power Grab

 

Find Your Elected Officials for Issues

Enter your zip+4 and find your elected officials. This link provides name, address and phone number

ButtonFindElectedOfficials

 

Email Your Senators and Representatives - Ask Them to Support Peace Legislation

There is no faster way to send a message to your Congress members than using our Email Advocacy Tool.

  1. Enter your Zip +4
  2. Use our letter or feel free to edit and create your own
  3. Choose an Advocacy Alert and have your letter sent directly to your Congress Member


Advocacy Alerts

Bennis: There is No Military Solution to Syria

Miriam Pemberton - Progressive Central

Building the Peace and Justice Movement

Miriam Pemberton - Swords into Ploughshares