Yesterday, “all five of the [Supreme] Court’s conservatives joined together … to invalidate a sixty-three year-old ban on corporate money in federal elections,” a move that Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) said “opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law” by big corporations.

Today, in response to the Supreme Court’s catastrophic decision, “dozens of current and former corporate executives” from corporations including Delta, Ben & Jerry’s, and Crate & Barrel sent a letter to Congress asking it to immediately pass the Fair Elections Now Act, which would publicly finance all congressional campaigns out of a special fund created by a fee levied on TV broadcasters:

Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s, the Seagram’s liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men’s Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers — and fear it will only get worse after Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling. [...]

“Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors,” the business executives’ letter says. “And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the court’s decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase.”

Even before the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, corporate special interest money was making a huge impact on the legislative process. From 1998 to 2009, the financial, insurance, and real estate lobbies spent nearly $3.8 billion in Washington, successfully deregulating Wall Street, passing huge tax cuts for the wealthy, barring Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices, killing mortgage cramdown legislation, and weakening financial and health reforms.

According to polling done in November 2008, 69 percent of the American people support publicly financing all campaigns, including the majority of self-identified Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act currently has six Senate co-sponsors and 125 co-sponsors in the House (President Obama was a co-sponsor when he was a senator). Click here to sign the Fair Elections Now Act petition.

As Congress enters the final stretches of the health care debate, members are looking for the best way forward following the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) to the U.S. Senate. One path being suggested is for the House to pass the Senate bill as is and then later use the reconciliation process — which requires only a simple majority vote in the Senate — to amend the bill and make it more progressive and acceptable to members of the House.

This evening, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball With Chris Matthews to advocate for this plan. As Grayson floated the idea, the MSNBC host repeatedly attacked the congressman, claiming that Grayson is part of the “outside world represented by the netroots” that doesn’t understand how Congress operates:

MATTHEWS: This is the problem, Congressman. Every night we deal with two worlds, the real world of Congress that has to do things and get things passed, and this outside world represented by the netroots and people like yourself, who play this game.

GRAYSON: What are you talking about? I sit in meetings with the Democratic caucus with meetings every week! I’m telling you, this is what we’re talking about. This is what the leadership is telling us.

MATTHEWS: We’ll make a side bet that it’s not going to happen. Congressman Alan Grayson, a true believer that you can get things done by willing it to get done! [laughs]

Watch it:

It is true that Grayson embraces the netroots, with an active Daily Kos account and multiple issue campaign websites. But unlike Chris Matthews, Grayson is also a member of Congress and has a vote.

This week, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia — the largest shareholder of News Corp outside the Murdoch family — endorsed Rupert Murdoch’s son James to succeed the elder Murdoch when he retires. Alwaleed, King Abdullah’s nephew, is Saudi Arabia’s richest person and the world’s 22nd wealthiest (Murdoch is number 132). He holds large stakes in many American companies, including Citi. The prince met with Murdoch last week to discuss a “future potential alliance with News Corp,” and he told Charlie Rose Wednesday about his respect for the Murdoch dynasty:

ALWALEED: I met with Mr. Rupert Murdoch and Mr. James Murdoch. We are always in tough. I’m second biggest shareholder there. And no doubt that News Corp is moving on all the fronts. You’ve seen how FOX rating is skyrocketing. … James is now managing Europe and Asia. … I’ll be the first one to nominate him to be the successor of Mr. Rupert Murdoch, god forbid if something happens to him. … I have full confidence in [James], full trust in him, and he’s capable. He’s really Rupert Murdoch in the making, and he’s almost there now.

Alwaleed came to most Americans’ attention following the 9/11 terror attacks when New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani turned down a $10 million donation from Alwaleed over a controversial comment he had made about U.S. foreign policy. As Media Matters noted, several Fox News personalities criticized Alwaleed at the time. Fox News host Sean Hannity called Alwaleed’s comment an “egregious, outrageous, unfair offense.” That was before Alwaleed purchased a seven percent stake in its parent company.

In the Battle of Waterloo, Democrats are prepared to surrender. After Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) issued his battle cry to the Democrats in August, President Obama aptly responded by noting “this isn’t about me,” but rather, it’s about “a health care system that is breaking America’s families.” “We can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care — not this time, not now,” Obama added. But today, Democrats — just inches from the goal-line — are prepared to take a knee, run out the clock, and renege on their promise of seeing health care reform through completion.

Learning the wrong lessons from a Massachusetts election, Democrats are finding difficulty motivating their solid majorities in the House and Senate to finish what they started. The outcome in Massachusetts didn’t change the basic fundamental questions: Can we afford the status quo, and is the current reform bill better than doing nothing at all?

Last year, Senate and House Democrats pledged to fix the broken health care system and put the nation on a sustainable economic path by repeatedly voting for change. If they’re still committed to that goal, then passing the Senate health care bill alongside a reconciliation package to improve the underlining legislation and address popular concerns is the only way to achieve the change voters demanded in 2008.

Trying to pass a scaled-back version of reform would drag out the process, fail to substantially lower costs or improve access, and do so without any assurance that it will be any more popular in Congress. Democrats therefore have two choices: pass an improved version of the Senate health care bill or abandon the effort altogether. If Democrats chose the latter, millions more Americans would go without health care and health care costs would continue to skyrocket. Politically, the Democratic Party will be ridiculed for talking a big game but delivering no results. They will lose their progressive base and outsource their agenda to the Republican minority — all simply because their supermajority of 60 shrank to 59.

Democrats are hesitant to vote again for an unpopular health care bill. They fear that the Massachusetts elections are a bellwether of the upcoming midterms. Change of the magnitude envisioned by health care reformers certainly does not come easily. As Obama said in March, “To kick these problems down the road for another four years or another eight years would be to continue the same irresponsibility that led us to this point. That’s not why I ran for this office. I didn’t come here to pass on our problems to the next President or the next generation — I came here to solve them.”

The Democrats have an opportunity to improve health care for millions of Americans. They will regret squandering this moment if they cannot regroup now.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Update

Tom Toles provides this illustration: