Talking Points Citizens United v.

. Federal Election Commission has given corporations and unions an unfair advantage in the election process. It is having a dramatic impact in the way our elections are run and as the public has become further marginalized in that they are unable to decide the outcome of a candidacy.

Senator Daniel Squadron has introduced a bill named S101-2011which would enact the Corporate Political Activity Accountability to Shareholders Act.

If the bill were to be enacted it would require on a state level that any corporate financial contributions to all political candidates and/or Super PAC in support or opposition to a candidate or ballot initiative be approved by a majority of the shareholders within its organization.

The bill looks to redress certain fundamental legal loopholes that were left open by the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United v FEC in 2010 to overturn critical provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

It is important to support this bill and similar efforts as our whole democratic way of life is in imperil when corporations are able to align themselves with politicians such as yourself for their corporate interests and not necessarily in the interests of the public in general.

Elections should be free of corporate influence as Americans should always feel that they are able to influence the direction of their country even at a local level such as our district by the ballot box and not fear that the person next to him that is turning the lever is not a corporation will multi-million dollar budget that will have a louder voice than his single vote.

Summary Due to scheduling conflicts between myself and the office of Senator Flanagan, I spoke over the phone with one of his political aides, AnnMarie. She was very polite but formal. She wanted to know what issue I was looking to advocate for. I quickly outline the bill and the status of the bill, which I had seen that Senator Flanagan had opposed moving it forward. When pressing her as to the reason why Senator Flanagan would oppose such a measure, she could not give an answer and was evasive. It felt more like she thought I was from a news agency and that she could not speak freely on the matter as to his position and/or that he did not have a clear-cut response to his reasoning behind opposing the measure. She stated that she would have to get back to me. The senators aide did call back with further information as to Senator Flanagans current opposition to the bill. She stated that Senator Flanagan voted no to moving it out of committee because of he had concerns over the language of the bill especially in reference to how the attorney general would be able to implement it. She also spoke about the fact that he was afraid of the language in that it had in reference to what would be the business rationale, which she was unable to explain further. When asked if it was revised, would the senator be more supportive, she stated that she could not answer and that the senator would need to read the revised bill and look at its implications. At that time, I returned to the talking points and explain that it is important to support this bill and similar efforts as our whole democratic way of life is in imperil when corporations and unions are able to align themselves with politicians for their corporate interests and not necessarily in the interests of the public in general.

This did not seem to impress her much, she expressed appreciation that I was a concerned citizen and that naturally Senator Flanagan believes in having free and fair elections but it seemed that she had no intention of revealing more than her own talking points allowed. She did agree hesitantly that corporations have the ability to outspend the general public but she protected the Senators reputation as stellar and that he seeks the best interests of all constituents in Suffolk County. In speaking with his aide, it felt that I was speaking more on a superficial level in that it was trading opposing talking points. Politics seems to be a mere game of chess that unravels with the news of the day and the talking points are streamlined for the next chess match. As much as I enjoy political debate, I deeply believe that the real politics of the day are above mere advocacy. Unfortunately, the experience makes me a tad more cynical of enabling social change on merely on the legislative level, and have come to believe that the activist model pushes the legislative side along much faster by bringing pressure on the streets and getting noticed by the public. This is why the Occupy Wall Street protests were effective as they had brought the news media to them. Politicians need to feel a bit of discomfort for real social change to occur.