Last loss for Anthem
An article in the Feb. 29 Bangor Daily News reported on the appeal by Anthem Health Plans of Maine to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Anthem asked the court to override the decision of Maine’s Bureau of Insurance to deny a premium rate increase of 9.2 percent.
The state’s Insurance Superintendent Mila Kofman allowed an increase of just 5.2 percent. The lower increase (5.2 percent) was deemed to be fair and adequate to the insurance carrier. The court upheld the superintendent’s decision and did not allow an increase higher than 5.2 percent.
In the future, this may not be an issue since in 2011 the Legislature passed a health care reform law that prohibits Maine’s Bureau of Insurance from denying an insurance rate increase that does not exceed 10 percent. This decision was shortsighted and is damaging to Maine citizens.
This portion of Maine’s health reform law must be repealed for the sake of Maine residents who already pay exorbitant health insurance premiums. All Maine residents should be encouraged to contact their state representatives to demand this law be changed.
Anthony Filauro
Millinocket
King doesn’t measure up
If Olympia Snowe, with all her Senate and House connections, can’t alter the tone in the Senate, how is an independent former governor from Maine supposed to change things?
What can he realistically hope to accomplish? Are the Republicans going to pay any attention to a proponent of wind power? Will he somehow convince the party of Big Oil to embrace renewable resources?
He hopes to become a power broker, but he could end up as irrelevant as Joe Lieberman. That may serve Angus King’s interests, but will it serve Maine’s?
Angus served a long time ago, during a different economy, and won against weak candidates. If changing the tone and climate in Washington was so important, why didn’t he jump into the race before Olympia dropped out? Is that his idea of leadership, jumping in when it’s a much easier race?
Angus has a lot of questions to answer. Charm only gets Maine so far. Tough times demand more leadership than ex-Gov. King has demonstrated.
Robert R. O’Brien
Peaks Island
Cushing is wrong
Rep. Andre Cushing, a longtime foe of Maine’s citizen-initiated clean election system, has his facts wrong in his March 6 Op-Ed article.
After a court struck down the matching funds system — a part of the law that allowed candidates who faced big-spending opponents to be heard — the nonpartisan Ethics Commission came up with a good alternative. It is the “requalifying option” that would allow candidates in these tough races to receive funds to supplement their modest clean election distributions if they pass an additional threshold of support from local voters.
Cushing is dead wrong about the cost of this program and the size of distributions to candidates. It is a budget-neutral proposal that caps the amount that any candidate may receive at a lower amount than under the matching funds system.
The Legislature should strengthen clean elections by passing this common sense reform. Rep. Cushing is one of the 20 percent of candidates who still rely on private donations to fund his campaigns, and he usually raises more than anyone else. That is his choice.
But in advocating for weakening our first-in-the-nation clean election System, Cushing now wants to take away a choice that has been proven to be good for the 80 percent who prefer to say no to special interests.
Weakening clean elections is a bad choice for Maine.
Fern Stearns
Orland
Bullying protection needed
Bullying in schools is by no means a new problem. However, technology has dramatically changed the face of bullying. Text messaging and social networking sites make it difficult, if not impossible, to find relief from bullying and its damaging effects.
This is why it is crucial that Maine schools address bullying head-on. The passage of LD 1237, “An Act to Prohibit Bullying and Cyberbullying in Schools,” would prohibit bullying and help protect Maine children.
Sometimes the impact of bullying is tragically visible, as in the cases of bullying victims nationwide who have committed suicide in the last several years. However, many consequences of bullying are considerably less obvious. The National School Safety Center has called bullying “the most enduring and underrated problem in U.S. schools.” Victims of bullying may experience depression, anxiety, eating disorders, suicidal thoughts, loneliness, decreased academic performance and chronic absenteeism. The effects may also last for years and negatively impact adult relationships.
Common sense dictates that Maine schools would seek to protect students from bullying and its negative consequences. LD 1237 would set a minimum requirement that all schools have a policy that prohibits bullying. The policy would be developed at the local level with input from parents, teachers and community members. Additional requirements of LD 1237 include training for educators on how to deal with bullying and that teachers report and address all bullying incidents. Please contact your state representative and urge him or her to support LD 1237 so all Maine children receive protection from bullying.
Melanie Rockefeller
Orono
Clean works, so save it
I respectfully disagree with Rep. Andre Cushing about the value of Maine’s Clean Election system (“Maine Clean Elections system hits speed bump,” BDN Op-Ed, March 5).
For over a decade, clean elections has provided hundreds of Maine people the opportunity to run for office without doing the dreaded money dance that defines campaigns almost everywhere else. Eighty percent of the current legislature used clean elections to win their seat, and many good legislators would not have run without it. In the 2010 election, the strongest participation was in the Republican Senate caucus, but Democrats and others used the system in strong numbers, too.
Despite the few problems that Rep. Cushing mentions, clean elections has enjoyed a remarkably successful run for more than 10 years. The issues that he mentioned have all been corrected with responsible, bipartisan legislative action.
Today, the 125th Legislature must respond to a problem created, not by a candidate, but by a court — the same Supreme Court that brought us Citizens United. In striking down matching funds, the court stripped away an integral part of the law — the part that has allowed clean elections to work for all the candidates who wanted to use it. Lawmakers should adopt the “requalifying” option that was recommended by the Ethics Commission and endorsed by advocates from across the political spectrum.
Maine has always led when it comes to clean elections. Leadership is what we need today, and I call upon our elected leaders to pass the requalifying option and keep our clean election law strong.
Ann Luther
Trenton
“In the future, this may not be an issue since in 2011 the Legislature
passed a health care reform law that prohibits Maine’s Bureau of
Insurance from denying an insurance rate increase that does not exceed
10 percent. This decision was shortsighted and is damaging to Maine
citizens.”
Exactly. Doesn’t seem like they’re serving the people that elected them.
Seems they are serving the Insurance companies that finance their election campaigns.
The Republican majority wanted to “insure” that the corporations that funded their campaigns got the lap dog loyalty for which they paid.
Nobama with NobamaCare gave all the insurance compnaies the biggest bone of all
“the Legislature passed a health care reform law that prohibits Maine’s Bureau of Insurance from denying an insurance rate increase that does not exceed 10 percent.”
Absolutely incorrect. Doesn’t the BDN get tired of publishing lies? The superintendent of insurance will still be qualifying all rate increases. Maine’s new system is simply less cumbersome and more in line with what the majority of states are doing – and in total conformence with the ACA. What a bunch of crap this newspaper is.
You’re incorrect. Anything bellow 10% now gets a pass.
Sorry – you don’t know what you are talkng about or you are lying.
All rate increases will still be subject to the same set of standards and the superintendent may still take action if the rates are unnecessarily discriminatory or unfair. The difference is that a company may file and use as opposed to file and wait – up to a year. This will keep insurance companies from automatically asking for twice what they need, as they do now.
As Democratic Senator Bill Diamond said on Thursday, the clean election system does nothing to get outside/private money out of elections.
It may not since there are few people in this State that can compete with the Super PAC’s that the Supreme Court has declared to be people who can spend as much as they want annonymously.
You might find this of interest: legislative committee voted to eliminate matching funds provision used by nearly half of Clean Election candidates
http://www.dirigoblue.com/2011/11/legislative-panel-votes-to-eliminate-matching-funds-provision-used-by-nearly-half-of-clean-election-candidates/
There is something inherently wrong in my opinion with the so-called “clean election” funding. Republicans and Democrats have both benefited from a system that allows people with bad ideas access to the political system.
In my opinion if a candidate cannot garner the support needed to run an effective campaign with their neighbors then they don’t deserve to be elected. It is an effective natural tool to help elect popular people who would best represent their communities.
Clean election laws have according to the Supreme Court have been proved to restrict free speech rather than enhance it. Dump the system entirely.
It’s ok for an unnamed out of state corporate pac to fund a candidate? Are those the neighbors you are referring to?
Wouldn’t you like to know who the contributors are? See my post below.
I wonder what the costs for prime time slots on TV ads are? Especially in this comming election swing. Is there anyone who thinks that a local polititcian who is running for office at the state level can compete financially with one hand picked by a super PAC?
It would be interesting to see the running score card of money spent in this state in the next round of elections compared to that spent in 2010.
Pacs can do that now. Clean election funding matters not one whit to that.
SuperPACS are generally identified with a particular candidate… wouldn’t you like to know who that candidate is and who contributes to that PAC.
I expect the amount will be much higher. It always is unless we can find a reasonable way to do it without restricting free speech.
Not a gambling man but I’ll go out of my way and bet you a nickle that the money spent on the Senatorial seat triples the last race.
How about this as a solution? Anyone or any company or union can raise as much money for a political campaign as they want. But…. All money raised must be revealed as to source. Also PACS that act in the interest of a particular candidate and their campaign must acknowledge same. In other words a disclaimer must accompany ad saying this ad is acting in the interests of a particular campaign. The candidate saying “I approved this message.” That would solve the two major problems most people have with PACS.
So if a super PAC decided they were going to campaign to repeal Roe v Wade, who would be the person or persons saying “I approve this message”?
How about this, any one running these types of private campaigns be taxed on what they spend. The revenue being dedicated to paying down the national debt. This year alone would potentially put a dent in the debt. I’m not totally sure but wouldn’t money donated to campaigns or PAC run campaigns tax deductable? If so eliminate the deductions.
PACS for good or ill are usually identified with a political campaign. Usually a candidate but in the case of a PAC and Roe V Wade wouldn’t it make sense to have the contributors to each side listed? In the ad a major contributor would have to be listed… brought to you by the Catholic Church for instance. Maybe a rotating list. Idk.
I know when I contribute to a political campaign that is not tax deductible. I don’t imagine it is any different to a PAC. I know when I contribute to PACS I count the revenue as income and it gets taxed as such.
The larger PACs have a “sister” non-profit. The non-profit recieves large contributions and then transfers the money to the PAC. It allows for a better tax rate and curtails disclosure requirements.
I suggest we get rid of such back door tax methods, make each candidate responsible for the money their supporters give them and the message they pass out in their ads.
Makes too much sense Cheesecake. No wiggle room for the sneaky among us looking to advance their agendas. If money can’t buy an election here in America, where can it buy one?
add that it must be taxed as individual income to the candidate and I’ll sign on.
Senator Diamond was simply saying that those who don’t want clean elections funds can go private, and, sadly, especially since the Republican corporate corrupt Supreme Court majority passed Citizens United by one vote, clean elections alone can’t stop that corrupt money from coming in. However, he certainly agrees that clean elections at least sends the right message and helps candidates have a chance to compete who would otherwise find it hard to raise private funds, especially in the more local level legislative races. This attempt to kill the popular clean elections law is one more sickening plank in the national corporate Republican agenda straight out of the ALEC and Heritage Foundation playbook along with attacking voting rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights and all the rest. It is disgusting and would make our national founders sick to their stomachs. Cushing and his corrupt GOP corporate loving party are a a sham and a shame. The GOP corporatists have poisoned our state with this horrid national agenda which flies directly in the face of Maine values. They just don’t get it. They got crushed when they tried to attack our voting rights. Now they have attacked the popular clean elections law. Yup, it was all supposed to be about “jobs jobs jobs.” Instead we got “kiss my butt,” “little beards,” attacking the labor murals, attacking voting rights, attacking women’s rights, attacking workers’ rights, attacking the environment, and attacking clean elections. What a bunch of corrupt corporate right wing LIARS. This is why the Dems just took a State Senate seat in a Republican area, and it is why the Maine GOP, with their goofball leader Charlie Webster whom they just reinstated, are going to get CRUSHED at the voting booth come November.
No it doesn’t block outside/private money. But it does give someone a chance to be heard. With out the clean election funds, most wouldn’t stand that chance.
Robert R. O’Brien, who would you think would be a better choice to run for the Senate seat? I don’t see anyone from the Republican side that would come close to measuring up to Snowes stature. Someone who will protect womens rights. Governor Baldacci if he runs for sure never really distinguished himself while in Washington as a Representative.
So the answer is negativity… Gee patom1 that sounds so… well… Romneyesque. We should vote for King because of 1.4 million Mainers “there is no one else?”
LOL, haven’t you ever seen slates that you might have voted the lesser of two evils? Or perceived evils? You will have the Tea Party voting behind Charlie Summers if he runs. Just what we need in Washington, another pol trying to fix things that aren’t broken. Did John Baldacci do anything when he was in DC as a congressman? Who knows, if George Mitchell or Cohen came out of retirement I would vote for them.
Got any ideas?
I like Rick Bennett, I’d vote for Joe Brennan (but he has the same age issue as King… too old) If the current slate holds, I’ll probably hold my nose and vote Baldacci.
..and yeah it is the lesser of three evils, but for all the fuss, Baldacci didn’t spend as much in his two terms as King spent in his. Angus LOVES spending taxpayer money… that’s why he wants to go to Washington… there is so much more money to waste there.
Actually to reveal my xenophobia I (at this point) would vote for anyone who was born in Maine.
If the Republicans ran a Kennedy, would you vote Republican? I doubt it.
Is there a Republican who hasn’t signed the Grover Norquist pledge? Do you honestly think that there are any Republicans in Maine who would make a pimple on the backside of a Kennedy, Cohen, Mitchell?
Agnes King tells us “he is not a knave”.
Anyone believe him?
Republicans have been strident advocates for dirty elections since McKinley ran for President in 1896. Cushing is simply the latest in a long line of money-grubbing corporate toadies: Harding, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, R-money, LePlague, etc.
…and Buchanan, Johnson, Clinton, Obama D-money from the EXACT same sources as the R-money, Solomon Bros, Duke Energy, Citi Bank, The Oil lobby, the Insurance lobby, and the AMA.
Which party has passed legislation that Wall Street loathes? Some Democrats have leased out to Wall Street, while every Republican has sold out to Wall Street. Look at how the Republicans unanimously refused to confirm any nominee to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until the Democrats changed legislation (Dodd-Frank) that had already passed both houses and become law.
I am more comfortable with a party that takes contributions and then votes against the interests of their contributors. They are signalling that they can’t be bought.
Votes against what??? Obama’s bank bail out was larger than Bush’s Clinton signed legislation to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Carter began the Bank deregulation act that allowed banks to do business across State lines, paving the way for “to big to fail.’
Sop around with the Donkey if you wish, but please don’t tell me the D’s favor the workers over the banks. Did you know Harry Truman used the Taft Hartley act more than any other president?
Glass-Steagall passed with mostly Democratic votes, as did Dodd-Franks. The votes to repeal Glass-Steagall were almost unanimously Republican with a significant Democratic opposition. Given a choice between a party that sells out to Wall Street and a party that occasionally leases out, I will take the latter as the lesser of two evils.
The bank bail-out occurred while Bush was President.
Are you talking about Truman’s use of Taft-Hartley’s arbitration and mediation provisions? That can be decidedly pro-labor depending on the bargaining positions of the parties when Taft-Hartley is invoked. My memory from reading the history of the Act is that Taft-Hartley passed over Truman’s veto.
(1947) U.S. legislation that restricted labour unions. Sponsored by Sen. Robert A. Taft and Rep. Fred A. Hartley, Jr., the act amended much of the pro-union Wagner Act (1935) and was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress over the veto of Pres. Harry S. Truman. It allowed employees the right not to join unions (outlawing the closed shop)
and required advance notice of a labour strike, authorized an 80-day
federal injunction when a strike threatened national health or safety,
narrowed the definition of unfair labour practices, specified unfair
union practices, restricted union political contributions, and required
union officials to take an oath pledging they were not communists. Landrum-Griffin Act.Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/taft-hartley-act#ixzz1owMeSaPK
My point exactly, then he used it more than any other president (after having vetoed it knowing it would pass on an override.
He used the provision for 80-day federal injunction when a strike threatened national health or safety. more than any other president. TAlk nice to the workers, then hammer them from behind.. That’s how Democrats do business.
The bank Bailout passed a Democrat majority congress and was approved (signed) by both Bush and Obama.
BTW I’m no big fan of the Republican Party either.
Please read my post above.
The bank bailout was supported by then Senator Obama, but it was most definitely signed by President Bush. Presidential candidates don’t get to sign legislation. It was supported by Bush, McCain, Palin, and a host of Republicans as well as Democrats.
The bank bailout was supported by then Senator Obama…
That’s all that counts.
He also signed P-PIP which continued the TARP (under a different name) into his administration.
You may chose the D label if you wish, but please don’t assume that I can’t read.
I “choose” the Democratic Party. I am glad you no longer contend that President Obama “signed” TARP. P-PIP wasn’t legislation, but an attempt to use remaining TARP funds to make troubled assets more liquid. It’s unclear whether the designated monies actually were expended, as there were initially very few takers.
I try to use words precisely, you sometimes do not.
My larger problem is your attempt to create an equivalency between the two parties. I opposed Carter’s limited attempts at financial deregulation, opposed NAFTA, opposed the bank bailout as structured, and wish that President Obama had pushed for the streamlining of union elections. He has had to govern and I have not. Had I been alive during the Civil War, I would have been disappointed that the Emancipation Proclamation was so long in coming.
Governing involves compromise and voting for legislation is, in the case of TARP, an apparent choice between doing nothing or doing something. Had TARP come with a mandatory breakup of the five largest banks I would have supported it. I contrast TARP, which essentially gave the banks money without conditions, with what President Obama did with the auto industry: money with a ton of conditions. I also recognize that the only serious regulation of Wall Street since 1980 has occurred under President Obama and Dodd/Frank.
Do you seriously contend that the Republicans, had they had the Presidency and both houses of Congress, would have passed anything remotely similar to Dodd/Frank?
Taft-Hartley’s provisions can be used for either a strike by employees or a lockout by employers. It begins with a cooling off period and may end with an injunction. I am certain that Truman utilized Taft-Hartley in the middle of the Korean War.
Without a breakdown of whether it was used for a strike or a lockout, and whether it was used in peacetime or wartime, saying that Truman used it more than any other President is meaningless. We are far less unionized now than in the period 1947-1953. If you read your history books, you will recall that Truman infuriated the steel industry by taking over the steel mills in the middle of the Korean War to force them to come to terms with the Steelworkers’ Union and keep production going to keep the armaments flowing. The Supreme Court’s most famous case on the limits of Presidential power comes out of that dispute.
Look at the party on the state level that championed a “tax reform” bill that gave by the third year a $35 million tax cut to the top 1% and a tax increase of $3.5 million to the remaining 99%. Wall Street called it a Maine Miracle! You are more confortable with anything for the party than anything for the “people”.
Compare the estate and income tax changes made by LePage with the income tax changes made by Baldacci, but overturned by a people’s veto. Then we can have an intelligent discussion.
1896? WOW! Thanks for the Democrat stident advocates for clean elections since 1896. Who would have know? Now we know the good people from the bad people.
Fern, Cushing is an ALEC protege. This is to be expected.
Anthony Filauro
For a long long time the Anthem has had a way-too-cozy relationship with the State’s governing body.
I will write a letter, but what it will request is the ability for Maine citizens to buy the cheapest & best coverage EVEN if the best company is in New York, California, or Guam.
Robert R. O’Brien
Just an ole down-south scalawag doin the best he can. He’ll never get my vote without a convincing argument that he’s not going to spend like he did when he was Governor.
Fern Stearns
As a Yankee fan, I never liked the idea that my contribution to the team (season pass) was partially earmarked for funding other teams which couldn’t field the audience enjoyed by the Yankees.
I don’t like this system any better when in involves politics.
Melanie Rockefeller
LD 1237, “An Act to Prohibit Bullying and Cyberbullying in Schools is an anti-free speech law. It will never have my support.
The key to the bullying problem is education. Teach your children how to respond to bullying. This is a far more beneficial system anyway as “bullying” does not stop at the school-yard gate. employers, coworkers, politicians and neighbors do it too.
Ann Luther
See my response to Fern Stearns above
Anthony: Yup, get ready for a string of 9.99999999% rate hikes by Anthem. But what did people expect when the insurance lobby writes the bill and the legislators on the take pass it without even bothering to read it.
Robert: So if Snowe couldn’t cut it, and you claim Angus won’t…Then who, pray tell, would? I haven’t seen either party pull out anyone other than brain dead hacks and shills…
If King and Baldacci run a Republican will win.
I applaud the candidates who have chosen not to run on the “clean elections” plan that simply places the onus on the taxpayers of Maine. Libby Mitchell had how much left over from this funding after her loss? Was that given back to the fund?
If you want to know about the clean elections process, look it up. Don’t hurl questions around (that are clearly more accusations) when you are capable of finding out the answer. It’s not right.
I have come to realize that 4life finds looking for facts too onerous to bother with. 4life would rather toss out accusations and place the onus of fact finding on someone else. This appears to be the chosen posting technique of the obtunded conservative mind” toss bombs, run from facts.
We have a chance to change those who represent us in DC and yet we continue to send those who have the least in common with the most of us?
The corruption of money in our elections and on our politics has escaped nearly no one. Super-PAC money is being spent at 1600% above the rates PAC spending has taken place in the past. The common voter does not have a voice in this climate. Money is speech until the common voter has to buy groceries, or fix their car, or take their kid to the doctor or dentist. Money is speech, powerful speech, when a single donor can give $10 million to a super-pac that will flood the airwaves with messages that promote their own candidate. My $25 donation to whomever simply doesn’t carry the same weight, if, in the final analysis, money actually is speech.
I’d like to encourage folks in Bangor that think this money is speech formulation is biased, unfair, corrupts our system of elections and government to attend a work shop tonight at 5 that the Bangor City Council is reported to be holding AGAINST the efforts of some Bangor citizens to encourage that the city of Bangor pass a non-binding resolution condemning the Citizen’s United decision and the concept of corporate personhood. Portland and many, many other cities and town across the country are passing these resolutions in the effort to take back our elections and government from the big money interests that now legislate for their own benefit, crushing the middle class under the weight of preferential tax policies to corporations and the wealthiest among us.
Clean elections is one way to clean up a corrupt system that forces candidates into unholy alliances just to compete. Sen Collins recently told a common citizen during a 25 minute visit that she was not influenced by the money required to run her campaigns and that people in Congress were not influenced by money. She shook her head emphatically when this was proposed to her. I have to wonder what the big money donors are thinking when they offer $10mil to a super-pac. Are they doing so our of the goodness of their heart expecting nothing in return for their investment? Are the big money, out of state donors that contribute to Collins’, Pingree’s, Michaud’s campaign doing so with blinders on? They surely expect something in return.
Whether a donor’s intentions are pure or no, Clean Election funding of campaigns removes the temptation, removes the doubts and helps the common person run for office when they would be unable otherwise.
S. The term “Clean elections” is a misnomer in my opinion. Since when is using the taxpayers money for a political purpose they may oppose “clean.” Why do I need to forced to support someone, through my tax dollars, I politically oppose become “clean”? Sounds like nothing more than an attempt to limit free speech and keep entrenched the same mindset that has become the norm. Just my opinion.
You are not supporting one candidate over another, you are supporting a clean process, one that isn’t corrupted by an excess of spending on one side or the other. An un-level playing field is the dirty part of excess spending in a campaign. If you don’t support a level playing field, what does that make you? Policy positions matter in a clean race, not money. The common person can run on the strength of their ideals, policy positions, on the merits of those positions.
Corporations are not people, and money is not speech and wouldn’t be considered so except through the manipulation of the courts that corporations and their lawyers have achieved. If you are an ardent corporatist that believes corporations are entitled to be the final arbiter of law in this land, what does that make you? A believer in representative government of, by and for the people, or a corporatist?
I cannot recall at any moment in my life when there was a level playing field. In anything. Ever. The government trying to make it so will not change that fact.
So called “clean election” are in fact supporting one candidate over another. It sets up a competing system of campaign finance one candidate with “free” money provided by the taxpayer and the other with private money.
I would argue that under certain circumstances government finance has provided us with candidates just unfit with nutty ideas running state government. (Democrat and Republican )
Much of your last paragraph is to presumptive and accusatory and just plain not the law of the land for me to respond to.
That’s a silly assertion. The volume of money a candidate has does not correlate with the validity of their ideas. Your claim that one candidate is supported is similarly silly as the funds are open to all candidates, not exclusively one or the other.
I find it funny that there are these complaints about incumbents and the status quo, but any attempt to allow for challenges to that are denounced. Is there much of a chance for a candidate without ties to party establishment or special interest dollars to win an election? The clean election funds allow the answer to be a yes.
This was not the “government” trying to do anything. This became law through a Citizen’s Initiative. The people of Maine chose to set up this system. Several states have emulated the system Maine citizens voted for in the majority. Now a MINORITY legislature, a minority when compared to the majority of citizens that passed the legislation in the first place, is undoing the will of the Maine people. For the party that claims it is all for individual rights, and the will of the people, the republicans sure show their disdain for the people of Maine by working to destroy what the people of Maine set up for themselves. That was the case with the misguided same day registration law, that the people of Maine overturned… I am proud to say I helped in that effort to reestablish what the majority of Mainers want, against the interests of ALEC inspired legislation and the party that prefers ALEC inspired legislation to the will of Mainers. The Takings Bill, The Lawyer’s Picnic bill as I call it, is another in the ALEC lineup of give to the corporations at the expense of the taxpayer.
There is nothing presumptive in my last paragraph. The railroads perverted the spirit and meaning of the 14th Amendment in the years after its passage. Ostensibly to delineate the rights of freed slaves, the railroads falsely argued, and activist judges accepted those arguments, vague, contradictory formulations that gave corporations rights as human beings. Of some 200 cases brought before courts, less than two dozen actually involved freed slaves. The rest granted railroads personhood rights in error.
Citizens United sealed the deal in a grotesque way. Justice Stevens dissented with, “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
In another case the dissent was: “[H]ow strained a construction it is of the Fourteenth Amendment so to hold…. It requires distortion to read ‘person’ as meaning one thing, then another within the same clause and from clause to clause….” Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Glander , 337 U.S. 562 (1949): Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.
http://sdemetri.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/how-strained-a-construction-it-is-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
You argue in favor of an unlevel playing field. And no, it is not “free” money. It is money that is earned by showing themselves a viable candidate through the preliminary support of their neighbors from whom they would collect small donations. As Stevens said, American democracy is imperfect, unlimited campaign spending by corporations and the wealthiest makes it especially so. My “money” speech is not equal to the “money” speech of a corporation or a very wealthy donor.
Steve… I assert that the government cannot make the playing field level. But if that is the purpose of this law then that makes it even more vile. Government should not play favorites with the rights of its citizens in order to level the field. That is like saying the Red Sox should bench their best players when when they play a poor team.
I don’t see it that way. The “best” player is not that one with the most money. That is the assumption today, and it is wrong. The best player is the one with the ideas and policies that serve the people the best.
Money has corrupted our electoral process. An ideal situation might be fully funded public elections with little or no private money allowed. Run off voting such as was used in Portland’s Mayoral race would be another major improvement. Paper ballots that preclude the cheating the electronic voting machine manufacturers and others are tempted to engage in would be another improvement.
Just curious, would the next step be government approved candidates?
Absolutely not. Do you like having corporate chosen candidates? Only party approved candidates running? Do you approve of people with the best policy ideas being excluded because the process is closed to them?
If government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” why are you so against the people? A citizen’s initiative established Maine’s clean election process…. government by the people…. you’re against that concept?
Do you approve of people with the best policy ideas being excluded because the process is closed to them?~~~~~
Of course not and if the best policy ideas are truly the best ideas they will garner support. If not they would fade.
Portions of the citizen clean election initiative were found to be unconstitutional. Sort of like the citizens initiative in California that over turned gay marriage act. Sometimes the “peoples” will is a mistake. Good thing we have a process in place to overturn mistakes imo.
The government is not picking favorites in the fair elections. They are offering funds to both parties.
To limit speech? How? By giving everyone a chance to run for office and not just the very wealthy? The funds are open to all, so it’s not like you’re only supporting one side and not another.
Also, this recent meme about being “forced to support” something you disagree with is ridiculous. When has it ever been the case that we’ve been able to specifically determine where our individual tax dollars are allocated to?
Not at all the same in my opinion. In one the government is directing policy at the behest of the taxpayers. (my choice was made at the voting booth.) In the second the government is financing and selecting by its own methods who that candidate should be.
I don’t see an important distinction between the two (pre and post election). The election funds are for the benefit of the election itself. You speak as if the funds are selective in their application and they’re not. A huge chunk of those on both sides of the aisle have used to the funds. This isn’t a benefit to one or the other, it’s a benefit to all. It would be like using tax dollars to open additional places of polling — for the good of all. Unless of course you want to argue that increased access, both to candidacy and voting itself, somehow stifles free speech.
“The common voter does not have a voice in this climate.”
I though my voice was my vote?
If money is speech, your voice, unless you have lots of money, is a squeak in a cacophony of shouting by those with lots of money. Elections are not about what is the best for all of us any more, it is about what is best for those with the most money.
People who have lots of money have more votes? Maybe you haven’t sold what you believe in to others. Of course again you are a victim because the only reason you can’t convince others is money & wealth. Your opinion is pure & justified and any opposing opinion is corrupted by money & wealth. I think you are preaching to the choir which does not appear to give you enough votes to establish what you desire. Convince someone besides your choir. That is where elections are won.
Sen. Collins lies again.
Angus King’s private interests in favor of wind make him a bad candidate at a time when we need to change the winds of time..