The ability of the people to limit political campaign spending is now under assault by both the Republicans and the Democrats.

On the national level, the corporate twins, Roberts and Alito, are leading the charge to declare unconstitutional the ban on using corporate money for "independent expenditures" to support or oppose candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court is rushing through on a special schedule the Citizens United case, so that the federal ban on corporate "independent expenditures" is destroyed prior to the 2010 Congressional elections. This will enable corporate-backed candidates, of both major parties, to mislead voters about their beliefs and policies with massive TV campaigns by their corporate buddies. It also sets the stage for the Court to then declare that, since independent expenditures are unlimited, there is no reason to limit contributions to candidates by anyone, thus totally destroying campaign finance reform in the United States for all candidate races, including federal, state, and local.

On the Oregon level, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, both Democrats, continue to refuse to enforce any of Measure 47 of 2006, enacted by Oregon voters nearly 3 years ago as the most comprehensive and strict campaign finance reform law in America. Instead, they continue to allow unlimited political contributions and unlimited expenditures, just like the political cesspool of Illinois. Dan Meek and Linda Williams are representing citizens who are suing the Secretary of State and Attorney General to require that they enforce the law. The case is now in the Oregon Court of Appeals, where it probably will not be decided until next year. The Attorney General, John Kroger, has even refused to agree to expedite the case to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Campaign corruption is not limited to one major party. The Democrats in Congress now get more campaign money from corporate executives than the Republicans, because the Democrats are in power. But watch out for 2010. With unlimited corporate money, the Republicans could make a striking comeback, which would then doom even the mild reforms proposed, here and there, by Obama.

In Oregon, the scene could get even worse. The Oregon Supreme Court is now considering a challenge to the Oregon law, enacted by initiative over 100 years ago, that bans making campaign contributions in a false name. Hard to believe, but the Oregon Court of Appeals earlier this year could not find a majority of the 10 judges in agreement on any single rationale for upholding this law. Instead, a combination of two rationales were cobbled together to uphold the law, on a 6-4 vote. The Oregon Supreme Court should decide this case within a few months. If requiring truthful reporting of campaign contributions is a violation of "free speech," then there can be no accurate reporting or disclosure of campaign contributions. Candidates in Oregon will either have to report massive contributions from "Donald Duck" or "anonymous" or will have to reject anonymous contributions. If many Oregon politicians decide to take the "anonymous" money, then it will have little potency as a campaign issue (even if their opponents had enough money to get out their message without themselves taking anonymous contributions).

What can we do? On the state level, call or email Attorney General John Kroger and tell him to enforce the law (503-378-4400; john.kroger@doj.state.or.us). Call or email Secretary of State Kate Brown and tell her to enforce the law (503-986-1523; kate.brown@state.or.us).

On the national level, the assault on campaign finance reform by the U.S. Supreme Court can be stopped only by changing the Court itself, which is being run by the Republican remnants of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The number of justices on the Court is determined by Congress. Congress can enact a law to change the number, which has been changed 8 times in the past and has ranged in size from 5 to 10. A simple majority in the House and Senate could add two justices, allowing Obama to establish a majority that would uphold the campaign finance laws that are critical to maintaining any semblance of democracy. Will the Democrats in Congress do this? Probably not, because releasing unlimited corporate money would benefit them as well, protecting them against any populist challenges in their primaries or the emergency of progressive minor party candidates. The same court decision would also unleash unlimited union spending to benefit Democrats as well.

Oh, but what about needing 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster? Don't we need 60 votes in order to do anything in the Senate? Absolutely not. Did the Republicans need 60 votes in order to confirm the opponents of campaign finance reform to the U.S. Supreme Court? No. Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 52 votes by a Senate controlled by the 57 Democrats, 11 of whom voted to confirm Thomas, certainly the most right-wing justice in history. Samuel Alito was confirmed with only 58 votes. Apparently, 60 votes is needed only if the proposed action is in the public interest. Anything in the corporate interest takes only 51 votes. Some folks say this is because the Democrats lack courage or are "wimpy." The problem is not lack of courage; the Democrats and the Republicans are both chosen for office by the big money system. If they can get campaign finance reform restrictions lifted without getting blamed for it by the public, that is heaven for them. They can just blame the U.S. Supreme Court, while happily taking hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and benefiting from what will amount to billions of dollars in new "independent expenditures" by corporations, with most of it naturally going to the incumbents. The Democrats talk populist but don't govern that way. As Ralph Nader said, "The major difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, with a few exceptions, is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when big corporations knock on their door."

Can packing the court work? The mere public announcement by Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) of a bill to increase the number of justices (the "court-packing plan") resulted in the famous "switch in time that saved nine," when Justice Owen Roberts then suddenly reversed his anti-New Deal stance in order to dissuade Congress from adding more justices. Taking the initiative to change the court worked for FDR, almost immediately. Then, FDR in the next 6 years replaced 8 of the 9 justices, who retired or died.