Fincher Backers Call For Corporations And Wall Street Bankers To Buy Elections
Print This Post
Tennessee Democrats today raised major issues with the recent endorsement of congressional candidate, Steve Fincher, by a group that helped bring about unlimited corporate money in support or opposition of candidates.
The group, Citizens United, led an effort in the United States Supreme Court, which resulted in allowing companies with foreign divisions and Wall Street banks, among others, to spend unlimited corporate money to support political candidates. Grassroots conservative Tea Party activists have also opposed the decision.
“Lots of people have different positions about how we should finance campaigns but it’s only the fringe like Steve Fincher that believe foreign companies and Wall Street banks should be able to buy elections,” said Keith Talley, spokesman for the Tennessee Democratic Party. “In Steve Fincher’s world, companies that get federal bailouts like AIG or oil companies with dangerous foreign ties could elect members of Congress. Fincher must think Congress hasn’t done enough for Wall Street and wants them to have even more influence.”
Talley continued, “Because Steve Fincher’s campaign is about doing what Washington wants, not what’s good for the people of Middle and West Tennessee, it comes as no surprise that he probably supports the position of those Washington and Wall Street special interests.”
Democrats are not alone in opposing the unlimited corporate campaign spending brought about by the Citizens United decision. Grassroots Republican and Independent activists associated with the Tea Party movement across the country have criticized corporate influence in campaigns and the Citizens United effort that supports Fincher.
Tea Party Activists Reaction to Citizens United Ruling: [TPM, 2/3/10]
• A Nashville Tea Party member said the C.U. decision “puts corporations in a position to crowd out smaller competition and buy politicians from the local sheriff to the President himself.”
• From a Texas tea party activist: “This decision basically gives the multinational corporations owned by foreign entities [the right] to pour unlimited funds into the pockets of corrupt corporate backed politicians to attack everything this country stands for.”
• The leader of TeaParty.org in Houston said the C.U. decision “puts the people at a tremendous disadvantage.”
• From a California based Tea Party activist: “Most of the anger by Tea Party supporters is directed at the effects of special interest money. I believe that campaign finance reform is the most important political issue facing America. I would even go so far as to say that this issue is even more important that our current financial crisis and jobs. Everything in American politics is affected by special interest money. From who controls our monetary policies in treasury and the Fed to regulation of Wall Street. I would also venture to say that it was special interest money which precipitated the current economic crisis.”
Background
The Citizens United Political Victory fund recently announced their endorsement of Steve Fincher in his campaign for Congress. [Nashville Post, 3/4/10]
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Ruling: “Thursday’s opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political commercials on the grounds that corporations should be treated just like individuals when it comes to First Amendment rights. The problem, former Federal Election Commission Chairman Scott Thomas told ABC News, is that it’s much tougher to determine whether foreign money is behind a political ad when the check is cut by a multi-national corporation.” [ABC News, 2/24/10]
A recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll indicates that 8 in 10 Americans oppose the decision. [Washington Post, 2/17/10]
TEA Party attacked Fincher before. Fincher was previously criticized by the Mid South TEA party for his receipt of federal farm subsidies and for financing his political campaign with donations of those who receive federal farm subsidies. [Press Release, 12/14/09]