Occupy movement sees political progress

The spirit of Occupy Wall Street appears to be translating into political action.

The movement, which began last September, coalesced from frustration and anger over the nation's historic disparity of wealth and the alleged influence of money on politicians. It shot the phrase "income inequality" into the national consciousness and has since cropped up in the State of the Union and the Republican presidential candidate contest.

Two proposals, one in Congress and one making its way around the country, seem to echo those cries against the power of money, and could change the rules on political spending and taxes.         

‘Citizens United' and the Move to Amend      

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision said spending money on political ads and other material is effectively speech and deserves First Amendment protection. Unions, corporations or any other organizations could spend however much what they wanted on campaign ads from then on.

The decision was criticized for the influence it gives to wealthy Americans and corporations, which tend to support Republicans. It paved the way for "super PACs" to accept unlimited millions in donations and buy political ads, usually for one candidate in particular. So far, they've spend more than $40 million, according to returns filed early this week.

"We're still seeing impact," said John Gruhl, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "It looks like there's going to be a lot more money in the campaigns, a lot more ads, and it looks like they'll be a lot more negative."

Citizens United has frequently been a point of protest from Occupy Wall Street. City by city, an associated movement called "Move to Amend" is trying to build momentum for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.

Los Angeles, New York City, Portland and several other cities and towns across the country have already adopted a resolution in support. During the past month, Occupy Lincoln has been calling on the city council to do the same.

"We want them to pass a resolution that corporations are not people and money is not speech," said Jo Tetherow, 60, a retired real estate appraiser who has been a sort of matriarch for the Occupy Lincoln camp on Centennial Mall.

So far the council's reaction has been lukewarm, but Tetherow said the people of Lincoln support the idea. Interviews with several UNL students suggested the same.

"I definitely wouldn't allow unlimited money toward the super PACs," said Josh Doeden, a freshman political science and international studies major. "I'm not a fan of (them), because it's really just all about the money."

Sherae Sawyer, a sophomore broadcasting major, said she supported overturning the decision to allow candidates into politics without the wealth or following of Republican candidates Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.

"Everybody deserves a chance," she said.

But a constitutional amendment requires the support of two-thirds of Congress or the states, making it extremely difficult to push through.

"It looks like it's gaining steam, but I doubt that it's gaining enough steam," Gruhl said. "In our system, if you have a lot of money, you have a lot of clout, so the resistance will be huge."

High Earnings and Low Taxes    

In another echo of a common Occupy Wall Street protest, a bill was introduced to the U.S. Senate Wednesday that aims to equalize the tax burden across income levels.

The so-called "Buffett rule" — named after Omaha billionaire Warren Buffett, who supports it — would require millionaires pay an income tax rate of at least 30 percent, to bring their taxes more in line with most earners.

As Buffett has often pointed out, his income tax rate is about 17 percent. His secretary, on the other hand, makes a fraction of Buffett's income but pays a percentage about twice as high. Buffett and others have taken up the call to change that imbalance between high and middle income.

Like most tax issues, there's no simple reason for the lopsided rates. First, income more than $100,000 isn't subject to payroll taxes, which fund programs like Medicare. Second, wealthier people tend to make more of their income from investment, such as buying a stock and selling it at a higher price for profit. That profit is taxed at a lower rate than regular income.

"What it really does is penalize savings more heavily than spending all your money now," said Seth Giertz, an economics assistant professor who specializes in tax issues.

Like many critics of the proposal, Giertz pointed to corporate income taxes, which are often about 35 percent and take a chunk out of stocks prices even before they're bought and sold. Congressional Republicans have been solidly against turning the income tax dial up to 30, casting serious doubt on whether the proposal can survive.

"Taxing the wealthy has become a partisan issue," said Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, chairwoman of UNL's Political Science Department. The majority of the public seems to support raising taxes on the highest earners, she said, but the issue has become a matter of principle for the Republicans, she said.

"This may be the primary domestic policy of the Republican party in the last couple decades," Gruhl said. "It's become embedded in the Republican's DNA."