Reclaim Democracy!

Who Says the Debates Need to Change? Voices from All Over the Political Spectrum Decry Duopoly Control

by

Thanks to OpenDebates.org for providing many of these quotations

From the Media

“The debates are part of the unconscionable fraud that our political campaigns have become.a format that defies meaningful discourse. They should be charged with sabotaging the electoral process.”
-Walter Cronkite

“By deciding yesterday to exclude Ross Perot from this year’s debates, the commission proved itself to be a tool of the two dominant parties rather than guardian of the public interest. This commission has no legal standing to monopolize debates, and it is time for some more fair-minded group to get into the business of sponsoring these important events.”
– New York Times editorial, 1996

“In dictatorships, it’s common for political insiders to hinder or even silence non-establishment challengers. To do that in America , which supposedly champions open elections, is outrageous and intolerable. But that is just what the Commission on Presidential Debates has done.
– Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel editorial

“The Commission on Presidential Debates is a corrupt stranglehold on our democracy.”
– Phil Donahue

From Republicans

“I’m for more open debates.I think the very concept of an elite commission deciding for the American people who deserves to be heard is profoundly wrong.”
– Newt Gingrich

“I want to see my party achieve victory based on what we have to offer this country and our ability to offer it with integrity. I don’t want to see us achieve victory based on the fact that we are better at rigging the game than other people.”
– Alan Keyes

But if broadening participation in the debates increases public participation in our political process, that can only be good for America .”
– Oliver North

” We really ought to stop trying to manipulate history before it’s happened.”
– Clarence Page of The Chicago Tribune

“The debate commission is a corrupt duopoly.”
– Steve Forbes

“I’m trying to forget the whole damn experience of those debates. ‘Cause I think it’s too much show business and too much prompting, too much artificiality, and not really debates. They’re rehearsed appearances.”
– Former President George H. W. Bush

Democrats

“Where did these people come from to be final arbiters of free speech?”
– John Culver, a former US senator and CPD director.

“It’s fundamentally undemocratic. It’s awfully close to corruption.If this group can arbitrarily rule that a billionaire who gets 20 million votes and qualifies for $30 million in election funds can’t participate then God help the rest of us.”
– Jesse Jackson, after Ross Perot was excluded from the presidential debates in 1996

“The American people are the losers because the real issues never are aired by the candidates.”
– U.S. Representative Ed Markey, (D-MA).

Others

“The Commission on Presidential Debates must be replaced if we want to have a democracy in this country.”
– John B. Anderson, former Republican Congressman and independent presidential candidate

“Competition is healthy in all things. Third-party candidates in presidential debates will have the effect, ultimately, not of weakening the two-party system, but of strengthening it.”
– Michael R. Beschloss

The Citizens’ Presidential Debate Commission

by

The nationally televised presidential debates are the single most influential forum for most Americans in deciding whether they should vote and for whom to vote. They offer a rare opportunity to hear candidates’ ideas unedited and in context.

Since 1988, these debates have been controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private corporation created and controlled by individuals directly affiliated with the Democratic and Republican parties. The CPD operates with no public oversight, and its ability to serve democracy is compromised by its bipartisan control.

The two major harms perpetuated by the CPD are the exclusion of serious and popular candidates from outside of the two dominant parties and the exclusion of many vital issues from questions asked of the candidates.

Citizens’ Debate Commission Objectives:

Previous attempts to open the CPD events to deserving candidates and excluded issues repeatedly have failed. Therefore, we reject attempts to persuade the CPD to serve democracy and instead have helped initiate the Citizens’ Debate Commission (CDC) in order to create substantive, fair and non-partisan debates.

The CDC is a truly non-partisan coalition, representing a broad spectrum of views and issues, that will present a series of four debates among candidates in the 2004 general election for President of the United States. The Commission also will host one debate among candidates running for Vice-President.

Presidential Debate Criteria

The Citizens’ Debate Commission employs the criteria proposed by the Appleseed Citizens’ Task Force on Fair Debates

The first debate shall be open to all contenders who:

  1. Meet constitutional requirements to hold the office;
  2. Have qualified on enough state ballots to potentially win 270 electoral votes outright;
  3. Possess a substantial level of popular support. To gauge support, the CDC will independently commission polls of the general public or work with established polling organizations that are willing to construct unbiased polls (and ones not limited to habitual voters) 7-14 days prior to the first debate. Candidates must meet one of the following two measures of support:
    1. The declared support of 5% or more of respondents; or
    2. 50% or more of respondents say they want to hear the candidate debate.

Candidates meeting either one of these criteria in the first poll will be invited to participate in the first and second debates, after which a new poll will be executed. Those who meet the same criteria in the second poll will be invited to participate in the third and fourth debates.

Vice-Presidential Debate

The vice-presidential candidates on tickets meeting the criteria to participate in the third and fourth presidential debates will be invited to one debate among the candidates for vice-president. This debate will occur after the second debate, but before the third.

CDC Aims and Strategy

CDC will offer the opportunity for debates presenting a wider range of views than has occurred in any prior televised debates in general presidential elections. An expanded range of discussion will be facilitated regardless of whether or not more than two candidates qualify for any debates. Empowering and encouraging moderators to ask challenging follow-up questions, and allowing opportunities for genuine citizen participation are examples of how this will be accomplished.

The CDC will:

  • present the most widely viewed, covered and respected presidential debates;
  • have all CDC debates televised by the major broadcast networks and independent media;
  • attract all candidates for the presidency who meet participation criteria;
  • further democracy through debates that will include a wider range of participants and ideas and structured to challenge and engage candidates and the audience to a degree not reached by CPD events.

CDC Structure and Governance

The CDC is a new non-profit organization separate from ReclaimDemocracy.org and includes organizational representatives from across the ideological spectrum. Decisions will be made by a board of directors representing a variety of non-partisan organizations with broad constituencies.

The CDC is not a forum for furthering specific political parties or agendas, but to promote and present a debate series with democracy at its core and facilitate the discussion of a broad range of issues that have been ignored in CPD debates.

Because the public deserves televised presidential debates that operate unmistakably in the public interest, the CDC only will accept organizational funding from entities that are non-partisan and non-profit.

The Inaugural CDC Board of Directors is:

  • John B. Anderson, former U.S. Congressman and Chair of the Center for Voting and Democracy;
  • Angela ‘Bay’ Buchanan, president of The American Cause;
  • Veronica de la Garza, executive director of the Youth Vote Coalition;
  • Norman Dean, director of Friends of the Earth;
  • George Farah, director of Open Debates and author of “No Debate”;
  • Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch;
  • Tom Gerety, director, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law;
  • Jehmu Greene, director of Rock the Vote;
  • Alan Keyes, U.S. Ambassador;
  • Jeff Milchen, director of ReclaimDemocracy.org;
  • Larry Noble, former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission;
  • Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council;
  • Chellie Pingree, president and CEO of Common Cause;
  • Randall Robinson, founder of TransAfrica Forum;
  • Dan Stein, director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform;
  • Mark Weisbrot, co-director of Center for Economic and Policy Research;
  • Paul Weyrich, chair and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation (since deceased)

Editor’s note: Our work to build the CDC is unrelated to any presidential candidate or party.

 

An Excerpt from “Political Observations” by James Madison

by

April 20, 1795

Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.

The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both.

No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it.

In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them.

In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.

The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

–James Madison, from “Political Observations,” April 20, 1795 in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Volume IV, page 491.

Proposed Constitutional Amendments

by

Amendments to revoke corporate constitutional “rights,” reverse Buckley v. Valeo, and establish a right to vote.

Editors’ Note: We believe a proactive and ambitious platform is needed to reverse the decline of democracy in America and reverse the Supreme Court’s anti-democratic interpretation of our Constitution. Since soon after our inception more than a decade ago, we have promoted amending our Constitution to enshrine principles too important to be left to the ebb and flow of eelctoral politics and judicial nominations.

Since the US Supreme Court’s outrageous ruling in Citizens United v FEC, we’ve been pleased to see rapidly increasing agreement on the need for constitutional change. Two of these three proposed Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (not necessarily in this language) now are being promoted by the MoveToAmend, coalition (in which we participate) which emerged in January of 2010. We invite your feedback on this approach and individual amendments.

This article offers interesting history on each of the prior Amendments and summarizes the duration and nature of the campaigns that drove each Amendment.

An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections

SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

More on why we need to revoke corporate constitutional privileges (a.k.a., corporate personhood)

An Amendment to Reverse Buckley v. Valeo and Dominance of Wealth in Electoral Politics

SECTION 1. For the purposes of providing all citizens, regardless of wealth, a more equal opportunity to influence elections, public policy and run for public office; of furthering the principle of “one person, one vote” and preserving a participatory and democratic republic; as well as the purpose of limiting corruption and the appearance of corruption, we the people declare the unlimited use of money to influence elections incompatible with the principle of equal protection established under the Fourteenth Amendment.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of any federal election.

SECTION 3. Each state shall have the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of elections in that state.

SECTION 4. The power of each state to set limits on contributions and expenditures shall extend to all elections in that state, including initiative and referendum elections, as well as the power to lower any federal limits for the election of members of Congress to represent the people of that state.

SECTION 5. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Possible additions/strengthening of Section 1:

  • Equal protection under the law shall not be abridged or denied on account of wealth, religion, sex, or race.
  • Include ban on corporate spending within this Amendment, rather than in separate one (see below).

Thanks to Derek Cressman for drafting this Amendment

See also It’s Time to Overrule the Supreme Court and Eliminating Corporate Power Overballot Questions.

An Amendment to Create an Affirmative Right to Vote

If it seems strange to you that we are calling for an amendment to establish something you thought we already had, you may want to read this article first. Below is the language of House Joint Resolution 28, which was introduced in mutliple sessions of Congress by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois (we differ on some strategic choices).

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right to vote.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

Section 1. All citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.

Section 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.

Section 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

Resources on Establishing a Right to Vote

Citizens United v. FEC Ruling & Selected Media Coverage

by

Updated January 21, 2010

See our comprehensive introduction to Citizens United for background

Court Opinions (Issued January 20, 2010)

Notable Analysis and Commentary

There were 2000+ articles published within 24 hours of the Court’s announcement, this is just a sampling.

Pre-ruling coverage

 Notable Quotes

“The bottom line is, the Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next November’s election. It won’t be the Republican or the Democrats and it won’t be the American people; it will be Corporate America.” –Senator Charles Schumer

“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.” –Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent

“Five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.” — Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter and commnetator at NY Times

Eliminating Corporate Power over Ballot Initiatives

by

The Problem:

Corporate executives often wield their Supreme Court-created power to defeat citizen ballot initiatives. Increasingly, corporations and wealthy individuals are putting measures on the ballot that advance their own self-interest. While it is far easier for corporations to defeat citizen initiatives than to pass their own, just the threat of running a costly initiative campaign can be sufficient to alter decisions by local or state officials.

In 2018, 48 ballot measures raised more than $5 million in spending, and the side that spent more won 42 of these. In the 10 most expensive ballot measures, the side that spent more won each race. (Source: Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, newer data was not compiled as of our last update)

  • In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law prohibiting corporate spending to influence state ballot initiatives (on First Amendment grounds). Though the opinion resorted to “listeners’ rights” arguments that protect free speech and not the corporate “speaker,” the effect was to create a presumed corporate right to influence ballot questions. The sharp dissent of conservative Justice William Rehnquist is key reading.
  • In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) the Court held that there was no First Amendment violation in requiring a corporation to set up segregated funds (i.e., a Political Action Committee) for spending on candidate campaigns. So, while executives and employees could contribute to a corporation-affiliated PAC, the corporation could not write company checks directly to a candidate’s campaign.
  • Following the Austin ruling’s logic, in 1996 Montana citizens drafted and passed Initiative 125, which banned direct corporate contributions to initiative campaigns. The law was challenged by the Montana Chamber of Commerce and others as unconstitutional. Deciding Bellotti, rather than Austin was the guiding precedent, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took Bellotti even further in striking down I-125 (Montana Chamber, et. al. v. Argenbright, 2000).
  • After Bellotti, a series of Supreme Court decisions showed increased deference to legislative campaign contribution limits, leading some scholars to believe that a reversal of Bellotti might occur. However, since John Roberts was selected as Chief Justice, the Court seems to have tacked sharply against limiting corporate privileges, as we see with the Citizens United ruling.

Our Objectives:

Reclaim Democracy works to create widespread public awareness of the damage done to democracy by granting corporations the right to influence initiatives and referenda. We seek to re-frame local ballot measure battles and coordinate a legal strategy to erode corporate political speech privileges via local and state campaigns. Our ultimate goal is to build support to overturn the Bellotti ruling at the Supreme Court or via amending the Constitution.

Recent Examples and Opportunities:

  • In March of 2021, Utah State legislators advanced a bill to hinder the ability of citizens to bring initiatives to the ballot. An out-of-state, dark money group worked side-by-side with a legislator on the bill, attending committee hearings and legislative sessions in support.
  • In California, Proposition 10, which would allow local municipalities to adopt rent-control provisions, was defeated in 2018. Campaign opponents raised $80 million, from mostly out-of-state investors.
  • In 2012, California’s Proposition 37, which would require GMO foods to be labeled as such, was defeated after millions were spent by huge corporations like Monsanto and DuPont.
  • In Michigan, 2012’s failed Proposal 6 sought to amend the State Constitution to require the approval of a majority of voters for proposed international bridges or tunnels. The bill was backed by a man who generated $60 million annually from a privately owned toll bridge.

Key Background Resources

Other Court Cases

Papers

Additional Resources