Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court reached the rather obvious conclusion that unlimited campaign donations are an invitation to corruption — if just one wealthy individual can fund a politician’s entire campaign, then that politician will likely do that donor’s bidding for their entire term in office. Thus, contribution limits were constitutional, because the Constitution allows lawmakers to protect society’s compelling interest in fighting corruption in politics.

As Rick Hasen explains, however, the Supreme Court took leave of its senses in Citizens United, deciding in that case that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Because of this decision, corporations now have free reign to spend as much money as they wanted to influence elections. How could spending millions of dollars to put a particular lawmaker in office possibly cause that lawmaker to feel beholden to their new corporate benefactor?

Now, Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) wants to take this even further. In essence, Lee just sought permission to set up his own slush fund, powered by unlimited corporate donors, and use this slush fund to buy influence with his fellow lawmakers by running ads in their districts:

Leadership PACs are political committees that sitting members of Congress (and others) set up to allow them to make contributions to other candidates and spend money to support their election. It is a way for a member of Congress to build influence.

Sen. Mike Lee’s Leadership PAC, the Constitutional Conservatives Fund PAC, has just asked the Federal Election Commission for permission to collect unlimited contributions from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals for independent spending to elect other candidates. The SuperPAC’s lawyers argue that there’s no danger of corrupting these other candidates, because its spending to help them get elected will be independent of those candidates.

So Lee’s idea is that corporate CEOs, Wall Street tycoons and other well-moneyed interests can show up at his office and turn over completely unlimited amounts of funds. Lee can then buy new friends in Washington and in state governments by channeling these corporate funds to an army of grateful politicians. And the more money corporate America gives him, the more powerful Lee becomes — and the more he owes this new found power to his brand new corporate sugar daddies.

But, of course, nothing about this reeks of corruption. The Roberts Court tells us so.

One year ago, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) committed the genuinely daring act of endorsing a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution to declare much of the last century of American progress unconstitutional. In his book Fed Up! and a series of speeches, Perry claimed Medicare and Social Security both violate the Constitution. He questioned the constitutional underpinnings of essential laws such as the minimum wage or child labor laws. And he demanded that the federal government eliminate its role in ensuring that all Americans have access to a quality education.

Perry admission that he holds these radical beliefs showed serious audacity, but Perry is also an ambitious politician who doubtless read the Tea Party’s tea leaves and determined that it was in his political interest to come out as a tenther. Now that his campaign has run seriously off the rails, however, even Perry appears to recognize that outing himself as a tenther was not such a good way to advance his political career. Although Perry’s recently released economic plan would unquestionably be the most radical assault on America’s social safety net in nearly a century if it ever became law, it is also strangely moderate compared to Perry’s previous stance that Medicare, Social Security, and much of our educational infrastructure must be eliminated entirely because they are unconstitutional:

• Social Security: As Travis Waldron reported yesterday, Perry’s new position on Social Security is a George W. Bush-esque proposal to turn millions of Americans’ retirement funds over to Wall Street through privatization. This is a dangerous and radical idea, but it is a far cry from Perry’s original position that the very idea of providing Social Security to America’s seniors is an “assault” on the Constitution itself.
• Medicare: Perry also supports a number of terrible Medicare proposals, including a Paul Ryan-style plan to voucherize Medicare, “gradually raising the age of Medicare eligibility,” and reducing benefits for many seniors. These proposals could potentially phase out Medicare over time depending on how closely they map Ryan’s subtle plan to gradually eliminate Medicare. Nevertheless, Perry’s new willingness to allow something that vaguely resembles Medicare to continue to exist is a step back from his previous claim that Medicare “eroded our founding fathers’ boundaries that they had put upon the federal government.”
• Education: Perry also proposes cutting $25 billion in federal education funds — or about half of all funding for elementary and secondary education programs. This new position is only about 50 percent as radical as his previous statement that “I don’t think the federal government has a role in your children’s education.”

Let’s be absolutely clear. Perry’s proposals would be a disaster for the millions of Americans struggling to get by in a terrible economy. Worse, they directly target the most vulnerable Americans — seniors who have left the workforce and children who are still obtaining the skills they need to provide for themselves in the future. But compared to his previous view that nearly the entire Twentieth Century violates the Constitution, his new positions are quite a step back. Three months ago, Rick Perry was the most prominent and outspoken tenther in the country. Today, even Perry understands that outspoken tentherism is toxic.

This is the second installment in an ongoing series on voting rights leading up to Election Day 2011.

Pointing to a problem that doesn’t exist, Tennessee Republicans created a voter ID law this year which, they say, will ensure that only those eligible to vote can do so. As predicted, the law is disenfranchising the poor, elderly, and minority voters, including a 96-year-old African-American woman, a 91-year old woman, and now, a 86-year old veteran.

World War II veteran Darwin Spinks went to a testing center last month to get a photo ID for voting purposes. Under the law, any resident without a photo ID is supposed to get one free of charge. But when Spinks asked for an ID, he was told he had to pay an $8 fee:

Spinks said Tuesday he needed the photo because when his driver’s license with a photo expired the last time, the driver testing center issued him a new license without a photo on it. State law allows people over 60 to get a non-photo driver’s license.

The retired print shop worker who moved here 17 years ago said he told people at the driver center he wanted an ID for voting purposes. He was sent from one line to another to have a picture taken, then was charged.

“I said, ‘You mean I’ve got to pay again?’ She says, ‘Yes,’” explained Spinks, a resident of County Farm Road, who was stationed on the USS Goshen in World War II and was called to duty again for the Korean War.

Forcing an American citizen to pay in order to vote is a clear violation of the constitution’s 24th Amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or the other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” The amendment was specifically enacted in 1962 to end the poll tax, a fee that was used to prevent the black population from voting.

The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security said it will send Spinks a letter and an affidavit to sign which states that he does not have a valid government-issued photo ID. Only then will they refund his $8. “If he came in for a photo ID for voting purposes, he should not have been charged,” the department stated.

This is the first installment in an ongoing series on voting rights leading up to Election Day 2011.

Michigan may soon join states like Florida and Tennessee in implementing major new voting rights restrictions.

A new bill designed to make registering voters more difficult is currently working its way through the Republican-controlled legislature. As Project Vote details, SB 754 would put new regulations in place to require photo ID in order to register, create new restrictions on nonprofit organizations who register voters, and undercut voter registration drives by requiring completed registration forms to be submitted with 24 hours when the election is nearing:

First, SB 754 requires people trying to register at a government agency to bring state-issued photo ID with them. If they do not, their application will be treated like a mail registration.

Second, the bill creates numerous burdensome and irrelevant bureaucratic rules for nonprofit organizations engaged in voter registration efforts in Michigan. For example, a group would have to register with the Department of State and provide voluminous information, including the name and address of every agent of the organization who is helping to register voters in Michigan. Any changes in the information they submit must be reported promptly to the Department of State as well. [...]

Finally, any voter registration form collected by the organization within seven days of an election must be turned in to the election authorities within one business day. The combined effect of these requirements is that small nonprofits that help to register voters—such as religious organizations, civic groups, and the League of Women Voters—are forced to spend valuable staff time keeping up with onerous paperwork requirements and complying with unreasonable deadlines instead.

On the last provision, Michigan would go even further than Florida’s new onerous restrictions, where people conducting voter registration drives are now allowed just 48 hours to turn in completed forms. Estelle Rogers of Project Vote told ThinkProgress that Michigan’s proposed 24-hour submission window is “the worst turnaround time we’ve ever seen.”

As ThinkProgress has detailed, new voting rights restrictions like we may soon see in Michigan have popped up in states across the country this year. From Florida to Texas to Maine and elsewhere, Republican-controlled states have enacted major new legislation curbing voter registration rights, attacking the Voting Rights Act, disenfranchising millions with photo ID requirements, and repealing election day registration laws.