It is quite usual that something comes out of the political landscape that is a game changer - especially something that is unexpected. The month of January, and the first month of a new decade has already brought not just one, but two of these events. Both of these events will likely be remembered for years, if not decades to come.

In the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, a 90 minutes scathing portrayal of Hillary Clinton was ruled by lower courts to have been overtly political and therefore violated political campaign finance laws. The Court could have ruled narrowly on this case, however, they asked the case to be argued in a much more broadly. The result was a 5-4 overturning laws that have been in place since 1947 which limit corporate spending on political campaigns and issues. Not only does this affect national elections, but also will overturn local and state limits. The effects of this could be very far reaching and cold radically change the political landscape as we know it.

Most obviously, this case is that it will likely be considered the turning point when the rallying cry of "judicial activism" will have changed from the right to those on the left. But beyond this, this case will have far reaching the impact and very well may permanently change the political landscape. Here at the Party of Common Sense we foresee two main effects.

First, at the local level there will clearly be a deep and far reaching effect. Take the following scenario - Walmart (or Target or any other large box store chain) can't get the local zoning to build a large superstore. The local mayor and town council are concerned it will change the flavor of the town and negatively impact, or perhaps even close, the small privately owned shops on Main Street. With this ruling Walmart can find a new mayoral candidate and new town council slate that are willing to back the rezoning effort. They can helicopter in a swat team of pollsters to find the hot button issues, use their money to control the message in the race, and get their pro-rezoning slate of candidates elected. Control of the message is critical. For example, Walmart can tout the new jobs that would be created in the building of the store and permanent long term jobs created staffing the store, while ignoring the impact on Main Street. They can also promise, if elected, they will raise private money (from Walmart, of course) to build a new playground. There is no way that a well meaning, small town mayor or council person be able to fight the money and professional political savvy of a large corporation. There are those that say that the townspeople are too smart and will see through this farce, however, one must note how many people still believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, Obama isn't a US Citizen, or healthcare bill included death panels. These are tried and true political tactics that have worked for ages.

The second major change could occur at the national level. Currently corporations hire lobbyists to get say in Congress. The lobbyists attempt to convince Congressmen and Congresswomen that their agenda is worthy of a vote, or change in wording in pending legislation, or even an entirely new law that should be introduced. These corporations often use soft money - raising money for campaigns within the limits of the law, or would use "issue" ads to attempt to indirectly sway voter's opinions about a candidate. However, why not bypass the lobbyist - the middle-man? Why not hire someone to run for office as a representative of your corporation? In recent times there have been a number of pop singer bands that have been manufactured by Disney and others. They hire telegenic people with some basic talent, groom that talent, and heavily promote the band. The same could occur with candidates. Companies would then have an elected representative in the Congress who could do the lobbying from within. Why have a lobbyist meet a Congressman or Congresswomen after the hearing, when you can have your own spokes person in the hearing. Having one candidate helps to make sure a company is heard, but doesn't necessarily ensure their legislation passed or amendments removed. Would it not be possible to get a couple of industries that have a lot in common and wouldn't have to worry about being on the opposite sides of a position - for example, the telecom, oil, and banking industries - to band together? These groups could band together raise whatever it takes to build a "Big Business Block". Money is no object. They could pick legislative districts that would be sympathetic, and could even move some industry to those districts - it shouldn't be too tough to convince the American people. Even trump it as being good - why not kick out the lawyers that dominate congress and put in some real business people from the real world? The Block would abstain or trade votes on legislation that is controversial or meaningless to their benefactors and would do the bidding of their sponsors. There is precedence for this - a number of countries which have political parties such as the "Steelworker's Party" which have a couple of MPs in parliament and band together with other parties to get their agenda enacted.

Although the scenario listed above is a bit “out-of-the-box”, at a minimum companies will throw their weight into elections periodically to get their way, and even if they don't, the threat of backing your opponent on the next election could be enough to bully existing Congressmen and Congresswomen into voting for the corporations' issues. The only way to stop this huge shift in power from the people to corporations would be term limits for Congress. It shouldn't come as a surprise that judges who are appointed for life suddenly find a higher calling. Rather than looking over their shoulder and worrying how a ruling might be used in the next election, they are free to search their own conscience, the rule of law, and greater good for the people. If there were a maximum of two terms in Congress, at any one time half Congress would be able to vote with a clear conscience. Perhaps then something might get done.

The other huge game changing event was the loss of Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts State Attorney General, to Scott Brown, a Massachusetts State Senator. In a reliably Democratic state, a state that Obama won by 26 percentage points, in a seat left by the late Senator Kennedy, a Coakley victory was almost a foregone conclusion. Although much will be made about how this may be a turning point against Obama's agenda, we at the Common Sense Party are focusing primarily on the effect it will have on Healthcare Reform. With the 41^st Republican vote in the Senate, Brown’s election provides Republicans enough votes to use the threat of a filibuster to shut down Healthcare reform. There are those that hold onto hope, however, we’ve see very little interest on any Republican to cross the aisle - in fact the Tea Party Activists have suggested that any Republican who attempts to do so, does so at their own peril. This represents a missed opportunity, not just for the Democrats, but for all Americans. It's a bipartisan problem, just like the pending Social Security bankruptcy problem which was squashed by Democrats when the Republicans were in power. Both were opportunities to do something to help fend off impending financial disaster. With healthcare, we've written several times about how we pay twice as much and get less than other average industrialized nations. We pay almost $8K a year per man, woman, and child in the US. That's collected through taxes (funding VA hospitals, Medicare, Medicaid, etc…), through payments from employers, and paid out-of-pocket from individuals. And it's collected unequally. For example, someone with insurance helps to pay the way of the uninsured. Just because you might not write a check every year for $8K or more a year per family member doesn't mean that you’re not paying it one way or another. Contrary to the Republican position, by almost every metric, we do not have the best healthcare in the world. In reality, by paying more and getting less we are destroying America and American competitiveness - we spend 16% of GDP on healthcare, twice what other industrialized nations do, and it's rising fast.

The three factors that should have been considered were Cost, Care, and Coverage - all three linked.

1. We need to reduce our costs. For example, why do we support the rest of the world by paying much higher prescription drug prices?
2. We need to improve the quality of care. How do we become more efficient in care - eliminating waste and concentrating on outcomes, not revenue.
3. We need to have universal coverage. We're the only industrial nation in the world that fails to provide universal coverage. The very nature of insurance means pooled risk. Your house may not burn down for years, and during those years you are subsidizing those who are less fortunate and lose their houses to fire. If your house burns down, others are subsidizing the rebuilding of your house. You can't have people opt-out when they are young and healthy (especially knowing they can go to a hospital and get care anyway) and have insurance companies refuse coverage for those that are most likely to need help. Ultimately, those that aren't covered will be helped anyway, and paid for the rest of us that do pay.

The irony is that this issue is close to the hearts of both parties. The Tea Party protests are being led primarily by fiscal conservatives. It is possible these people are just puppets of the right wing media personalities who see politics as a blood sport and a zero sum game and who really just want Obama to fail. However, if these Tea Party protesters are truly serious about fiscal conservatism, reducing the debt, and smaller government, then healthcare should be a top priority. If we saved $3,000 per person on healthcare, lowering us to the next highest country and closer to the average of all OECD countries, it would save $1.14 trillion dollars. According to the GAO the budget deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion. Subtract out the one-time costs of $245 billion in emergency spending on the Wall Street bailout and the takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the $200 billion in costs from President Obama's economic stimulus bill, and you get $955 billion - we could easily afford our current government structure and even start paying down the deficit. Alternatively, that money could be put into consumer pockets, jump starting the US economy. Or it could be put to work investing in new businesses, creating jobs, and expanding our economy. Instead, that money is consumed in healthcare - something that produces no tangible benefits since it is apparent that other OCED countries have a higher quality of care at half the cost.

So in the depths of seasonal winter, it would appear we are going into a dark, cold stretch of political winter. We are now seeing a new cold war where the dysfunctional Congress has reached new lows, and which might tear the country apart. We see icebergs ahead, and by each trying to turn the wheel in different directions, were we are destining to hit the iceberg. I wouldn't suggest one side completely give in, as this would set us on course towards other icebergs, but rather that we collaboratively agree to set a new course. Perhaps we are disillusioned with the state of affairs, dark in this Cold War and this winter gloom - but unless we focus on competing with others abroad, and not tearing each other apart, we destined to fail. We'll end up with a government where companies will run rampant; government will be polarized, paralyzed, and politicized. The best one can do is hope for a spring thaw. One can hope, can they not?