KEITH OLBERMANN: Citizens United may have met its match in the citizens of Montana.
In our fourth story on the "Countdown" — the Montana Supreme Court is working to end the money-based insanity evidenced in Iowa this past week. And is upholding its century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees.
The court refusing to recognize the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, by a 5-to-2 vote, ruling that state history showed that "even indirect corporate funding of political campaigns can lead to corruption."
The decision applies only to the state elections there, but an expected appeal could force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Citizens United.
And just yesterday, the New York City Council also passed a resolution opposing the Citizens United decision and calling for an amendment to the Constitution so that "the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally-protected speech." Los Angeles, Albany, New York, Boulder, Oakland have all passed similar resolutions.
The power of money over mere votes was on full display during the Iowa caucuses. Rick Santorum, the so-called "come-from-behind," second-place finisher there spent virtually nothing on advertising in that state.
Conveniently for him, something called the Red, White and Blue Fund spent more than half a million dollars on his behalf. That figure, of course, pales in comparison with the four million spent by pro-Romney super PAC Restore our Future.
According to NPR, the average Iowa TV viewer would have seen Restore our Future's ads three dozen times a week during the lead-up to the caucuses.
Now joining me — Rolling Stone contributing editor, "Countdown" contributor Matt Taibbi. Thanks for your time tonight, Matt.
MATT TAIBBI: Good to see you, Keith.
OLBERMANN: In your newest piece, you basically seem to suggest there was no role for Occupy or the 99 percent in this election or, perhaps, not even a real role for the folks — the valiant folks in Montana or the members of the New York City Council and all of the others who have argued against huge money — unfettered money in campaigning. Is it no role in the campaign or just no candidate in the campaign?
TAIBBI: I think it's both. I think there is an ongoing movement across the country in all of those cities you talked about — Boulder, Los Angeles, Montana, here in New York City — there is a movement against all of these issues: income disparity, the influence of money on politics, corruption. It's going on in court houses. It's going on in legislatures.
And people all across the country are interested in these issues, but there is no outlet for any of that political energy in this election. Because this election isn't about any of those things. In fact, it's about just the opposite. It's a celebration of the influence of money on politics.
And there is really no way for the ordinary person to express any of that animosity or that anger about these problems through any of these candidates — except for possibly Ron Paul — but really, aside from that, there really isn't an outlet for that energy.
OLBERMANN: Or if you are in Montana, I mean —
TAIBBI: Right. Exactly.
OLBERMANN: It's a funny thing about Montana. It was in 1912 that the voters in Montana passed this initiative that barred direct contributions to political candidates, to parties — and now the Supreme Court is trying to do this again, it's the 100th anniversary of this. Is there a chance — obviously, 1912 did not lead to a series of similar moves around the country, state by state. Should we get that money out of the state campaigns and the local campaigns? Is there a chance that there is, now, any kind of wave that starts in Montana?
TAIBBI: I absolutely think so. I think this is a start of something, because the more I talk to people who are in the Occupy movement, not only here in New York but around the country, I think the one issue that everybody can agree upon — not only in Occupy Wall Street, but also on the other side of the aisle, among the Ron Paul people, among some of the tea party people — is this problem of money in politics.
I think everybody agrees that it's gotten completely out of hand, and people no longer want to live in a country where whoever raises the most money wins every single election, and that's the situation we are in right now.
I think there is a movement that's starting. I think this thing that happened in Montana is just the beginning of something that may go on.
OLBERMANN: Another question about 1912. That, of course — as anybody who is even an amateur historian of the political process knows — the last time that a third-party candidate finished ahead of either a Democrat or Republican when Teddy Roosevelt —
TAIBBI: The Bull Moose Party right?
OLBERMANN: The progressives — the Bull Mooses — and he pushed the incumbent president, Taft, to third place.
I mean, I am not asking you to look 200 years into the future, but is there any reason to hope that something like that could happen again? Because wouldn't — let's say Citizens United is overturned, state by state, and then nationally by an amendment — wouldn't it just force big money to find another hole or create another hole in the damn?
TAIBBI: Oh yeah, absolutely. I mean everybody — everybody that I talked to in Washington always says the same thing. No matter what they do with campaign-finance reform, the money is going to find its way to candidates. It always will. You know, last election, the two candidates raised over a billion dollars between them. Obama, by himself, over $730 million. That money is going to get to these candidates somehow.
The problem is — let's not make it easier for them to do that. And let's — let's force these — the corporate money at least to be out in the open, where we can identify it. But I think it would be very difficult for a third party — a genuine, grassroots, independent candidate — to overcome that money because the problem is, they donate to both parties. They don't just focus on one person or another. So, it's going to be hard for them to come in at least second place, like a Bull Moose Party, because they will have to overcome money on both sides.
OLBERMANN: Is 2012 a lost cause, the upcoming election?
TAIBBI: I think so. I mean, I think it's going to end up being somebody like Romney versus Obama and those two candidates are going to raise probably $500 million apiece, at least, and, you know — who is going to compete with that?
You know, the money that comes from the investment banks, the Citigroups, Goldman Sachs of the world and, you know, the major university endowments and all of that. No independent candidate is going to compete with that, not even a Ron Paul, who has significant grassroots support around the country. I think it would be very difficult for them to compete with that.
OLBERMANN: The Rolling stone contributing editor, "Countdown" contributor Matt Taibbi. As always, Matt, thank you kindly.
TAIBBI: Thanks, Keith.
