Democrats were jettisoned into a political spin last week and the fallout will likely be felt right up until the mid-term elections in November. 
     In a special election, the bluest state in the nation, Massachusetts, elected a Republican to fill the Senate seat held for decades by Ted Kennedy. 
      There are many reasons why Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. Some had to do with personality, since voters still are easily charmed by things other than facts. Brown is personable; Coakley, not so much. Brown campaigned hard while Coakley virtually stopped campaigning after winning a hard-fought primary, presuming–wrongly–that the general election was a mere formality since the big fight had been among several Democrats. There were no exit polls, but voters ignored Brown’s far right politics on many key issues–despite the fact that the majority of Massachusetts voters are Democrats. 
       There were other variables in the truncated race, but the only one that is truly relevant to Pennsylvania voters is this: Democratic voters outnumber Republicans four to one in Massachusetts and Brown could not have been elected without Democratic voters.
      Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one in Pennsylvania where a pivotal Senate seat is at stake in November. Only two to one.
      The other problem raised for Democrats last week was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on corporate money, free speech and elections. In Citizens United  v. FEC (Federal Election Commission), the narrow majority opinion ruled that First Amendment rights trumped existing campaign finance reform restrictions. The 5-4 decision left progressives reeling for the second time in two days.
      The complicated Supreme Court case stems from the contention of the conservative group Citizens United that their First Amendment rights were violated when an attack film they had prepared on Hillary Clinton during the primary was not allowed to air on TV. The legal argument was predicated on whether the film could be considered a campaign ad under the McCain-Feingold Act which restricts corporate and union funding of campaign contributions.
      The Court split on ideological grounds: the five conservative justices voted in favor of Citizens United while the four more liberal justices voted for the FEC.
      Conservatives celebrated the ruling. Progressives decried it, calling it nothing less than judicial activism. (It should be noted that Chief Justice John Roberts had cited judicial activism as one of the major issues he would fight against during his confirmation hearings.)
      The ruling resonated on both sides of the aisle.  Rush Limbaugh told his audience, “Freedom is awaking from its coma today because of a huge, huge, huge Supreme Court decision—huge. I cannot tell you how big this is.”
       President Obama, himself a constitutional law professor, held a different view, stating that the ruling “gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”
      In his weekly radio address Obama said “this ruling strikes at our democracy itself” and “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.”
      Hyperbole? Perhaps, but for Pennsylvanians, the impact of the ruling may be felt sooner rather than later, as political ads for the Senate race are slated to begin running in the coming weeks.        Corporate interests, as well as union interests, are profound in the state, which is anticipating a brutal primary and dicey general election for the Senate seat currently held by newbie Democrat Arlen Specter. The primary is in May and one can only vote for the party one is registered for in primaries in Pennsylvania.
        Much was made of the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races back in November. Republicans wrested both seats away from Democrats. What was roundly ignored was what happened in Pennsylvania.
        In the off-year election last November, vacancies on the state Supreme Court, Superior Court and Commonwealth Court went overwhelmingly to Republicans who won six of seven seats, among them the controversial conservative Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin, who was elected to the state Supreme Court.
        In 2008, voter registration in Pennsylvania hit an all-time high in anticipation of the presidential election, which included an increase of 1.5 million more registered Democrats than Republicans.
       Yet in the November 2009 election, even though Republicans were outspent by Democrats and Democrats control the State House and the Governor’s office, Republicans still won handily. That win was also without anti-Democrat momentum or access to soft money through corporate or union entities.
        Democratic pundits note that November is a long way off–and it is. But May is not and in Pennsylvania, primaries tend to determine which party will win the general election.
         In April 2009 when Arlen Specter switched parties, the move was roundly seen as blatantly political. Specter, considered moderate by Republican standards and with a strong voter base among Democrats in Pennsylvania, faced stiff competition from Pat Toomey, the far right contender for the Senate seat who came close to unseating Specter six years ago.
        Rep. Joe Sestak is Specter’s Democratic competition now. Or wants to be. But Sestak isn’t even popular in his own district where the former Naval commander’s pro-war sentiments have been at odds with Democratic values there. What’s more, when the health care debates broke out in force last spring and summer in Pennsylvania, it was Specter rallying for Obama’s health care reform plan and becoming a champion of the public option, not Sestak.
       Last week Democratic Party leaders in Pennsylvania requested that Sestak withdraw from the race as Toomey’s numbers continued to rise. Concerns are that a bruising primary will give Toomey even more momentum and end up in the unseating of whichever Democrat, Specter or Sestak, is the candidate in November.
        Could Pennsylvania go the route Massachusetts took last week? Absolutely. Those of us who have covered politics in Pennsylvania for decades have not forgotten that it was ultra-conservative Rick Santorum who unseated progressive Harris Wofford in 1994 in the Republican congressional sweep. The November 2010 election has the potential to replicate that sweep and Pennsylvania is one of the key states Republicans are angling to win.
        Now they have way more available money to help in that fight, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling. Corporate interests in Pennsylvania are strong and Toomey has solid corporate support while neither Specter nor Sestak does. What’s more, Toomey is already trying to pivot off the Massachusetts win. And with record unemployment in Pennsylvania, Toomey has a ready-made platform for the kind of “change” message Brown ran on in Massachusetts.
      It may be too early to discern how much of an impact a wide-open campaign ad policy will have on the Senate race, but Pennsylvania voters witnessed the propagandistic ads that ran in New Jersey in the gubernatorial race–and that was without the lid being lifted on corporate interests.
      Will a primary with soft money tossed into the mix and a Republican groundswell benefit Toomey? It may be too early to tell, but Toomey’s lead increased this week. Toomey now leads both Specter and Sestak in polling, by four and nine percent, respectively. Specter handily leads Sestak 53 to 32 percent.
       Numbers shift, of course. But Pennsylvanians are strongly against health care reform–Specter’s key issue–and two-thirds say the country is going in the wrong direction.
        Money and issues could reprise 1994 for Democrats. It may be a long time until November, but political time is fluid. Martha Coakley thought she had her seat sewn up. Pennsylvania Democrats who ignore that cautionary tale do so at their peril.—VAB