Come out if you can to speak up before the beginning of today's (Thursday's) Dutchess County Legislature Government Services and Administration Committee meeting at 4 pm (get there early to sign up)-- to help support our resolution opposing the Supreme Court's Citizens United 2010 decision!...
[mtg. will be on 6th floor of County Office Building at 22 Market St. in Poughkeepsie-- join us if you can]
Thx again tons to several of my colleagues-- Co. Leg.'s Barbara Jeter-Jackson, Alison MacAvery, and Francena Amparo-- for agreeing to co-sponsor the text I drafted on this for Dutchess Co. Leg. to pass!...
[full agenda today: http://www.co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/Legislature/CLagenda.htm ;
text-- http://www.dutchessny.gov/CountyGov/Departments/Legislature/ResolutionsPDF/2012052.pdf ]
Important-- can't make it join us today?...email us all-- at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us-- fwd...
[note, too-- would also be great if you folks could speak up as well for our resolution #2012054 to be passed too-- at beginning of our County Legislature's Budget, Finance, and Personnel Committee mtg. at 4:15 pm-- it's for Better Choice Budget coalition recommendations to close corporate tax loopholes(!):
http://www.dutchessny.gov/CountyGov/Departments/Legislature/ResolutionsPDF/2012054.pdf ]
Rome wasn't built in a day folks-- the journey of a million miles begins beneath one's feet; let's move!...
[pass it on]
Joel
845-444-0599/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
http://www.JoelforCongress.org
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Joel (220+ on board; join us!)
p.s. Good news: word has it that Du. County Dem Committee is also set to pass resolution on this too!...
###################################################
[here below-- letter I've sent to my 24 Co. Leg. colleagues on this]
From: Joel Tyner
To: countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us
Subject: Colleagues-- background info re: resolutions on corporate personhood, Better Choice Budget recommendations to stop property tax hikes...
Date: Mar 8, 2012 10:09 AM
Hi all...
Re: resolution #2012054 (for Better Choice Budget recommendations for NYS to avoid property tax hikes)-- please see:
http://www.ABetterChoiceforNY.org ;
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPI_MauroBudgetTestimony_20120206.pdf
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPI_BudgetBriefingBook_2012.pdf .
...and...
Re: resolution #2012052 ("opposing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution in Citizens United regarding the constitutional rights of corporations, calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of protections or 'rights' of natural persons, specifically so that the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech")...
Fact: Anti-corporate personhood resolutions have also recently passed in Albany, NYC, L.A., Boulder, Portland (ME), Portland (OR), Duluth (MI)-- see http://MovetoAmend.org/resolutions-map (scroll down for text of resolutions that passed on this in Albany and New York City).
Please see http://www.MovetoAmend.org -- and check out massive national coaltion @ http://www.United4thePeople.org -- all of the following organizations across the U.S. are calling for an amendment to the Constitution to make it clear that corporations aren't people-- and shouldn't enjoy the same free-speech rights that human beings do: People For the American Way, Public Citizen, Free Speech For People, Move to Amend, Common Cause, Center For Media and Democracy, Progressive Democrats of America, Alliance For Democracy, Democracy Unlimited, Liberty Tree, Program on Corporations Law & Democracy, Communications Workers of America, The Other 98%, MoveOn.org, Rainforest Action Network, U.S. PIRG, African American Ministers in Action, Backbone Campaign, California Church Impact, Campaign for America's Future, Campus Progress, Center for Corporate Policy, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Health, Environment & Justice, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Code Pink, Coffee Party USA, Consumer Action, Consumer Watchdog, Corporate Accountability International, Demos, Earthworks, Friends of the Earth, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Global Community Monitor, Grassroots Recycling Network, Greenpeace, Hip Hop Caucus, IATP, Indiana Alliance for Democracy, Institute for Policy Studies Global Economy Project, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, National Women's Health Network, Oil Change International, OMB Watch, Pesticide Action Network North America, 350.org, Rebuild the Dream, RootsAction, Sacramento for Democracy, Story of Stuff, Sum of Us, The New Bottom Line, United Republic, A New Way Forward, VPIRG, We the People Campaign, Wisconsin Wave, A project of the Liberty Tree Foundation, Wolf-PAC, Working Families Party, Democrats.com, Center For Biological Diversity, Main Street Alliance, Sierra Club, National Education Association, The 99% Declaration, Americans for Democratic Action, CivicSponsor, Ethical Markets, Food and Water Watch, Food Empowerment Project, Generation Waking Up, International Forum on Globalization, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Veterans for Peace, Working Families Win, Public Campaign, Clean Water Network, Where's Our Money, and many others.
Did you all know what happened just two days ago this Tuesday?
"At least 56 cities and towns in Vermont voted nearly unanimously Tuesday on local resolutions challenging corporate personhood (see: http://www.Citizen.org/Towns ). Support for the resolution cut across party lines. Six towns in Republican districts and 13 cities and towns that have sent both Democrats and Republicans to the state Legislature voted for the resolution by wide margins. This bipartisan opposition to the Citizens United ruling mirrors several nationwide polls on the issue. We expect similar demonstrations of support throughout the country in the coming months. Today, Public Citizen is launching Resolutions Week, a campaign to get as many local pro-amendment resolutions passed as possible in the second week of June. Already more than 500 Public Citizen activists in 300 cities and towns have signed up to help pass resolutions in their towns. Public Citizen is coordinating the effort with a number of other groups, including the Communications Workers of America, U.S. PIRG, Main Street Alliance, the Move to Amend coalition and People For the American Way."
[from: "A Super Tuesday as Vermont Pushed to Overturn Citizens United" by Aquene Freechild
(Aquene Freechild is Senior Organizer for Public Citizen's Democracy Is For People Campaign)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/07-12 ]
Recall this from last month as well-- "The New Mexico state Senate voted 20-9 over the weekend to approve Senate Memorial 3, which calls on the Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The Citizens United ruling was one of several that opened the floodgates for corporate special-interest money to overwhelm the political process. The New Mexico Senate vote, which follows on a January 31 vote by the New Mexico House, aligns the state with Hawaii in calling for the amendment. "
[from "New Mexico Legislature to Congress: Amend Against 'Citizens United'" by John Nichols
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166222/new-mexico-legislature-congress-amend-against-citizens-united ]
"Public Citizen - along with Move to Amend/Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Vermont Peace and Justice Center, VPIRG, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, Rural Vermont, Common Cause Vermont, Occupy Burlington, Vermonters Say Corporations Are Not People, Vermont Action for Peace, Vermont Workers Center, and Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield (co-founders of Ben & Jerry's ice cream) - worked with Vermont activists to collect signatures and get the resolutions on town meeting agendas."
[from: "55 Vermont Towns Affirm: 'Corporations Are Not People'" (CommonDreams.org today)
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/07-1 ]
Recall as well:
"Citizens United Backlash Grows from Cali.-NYC Urging Congress to Overturn Corporate Personhood"
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/5/citizens_united_backlash_grows_from_cali
[also see: "Super Tuesday's Big Winner Is Already Settled" by Katrina vanden Heuvel (Tues. Wash. Post):
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/06-2 (scroll down all the way to bottom to see full text)]
Hope we can all pull together to rein in the influence of corporations today-- and send strong message to
Albany as well that keeping property taxes down is more important than preserving corporate loopholes!...
See y'all in a bit...
Joel
444-0599
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Mexico Legislature to Congress: Amend Against 'Citizens United'
John Nichols on February 13, 2012 - 2:55 PM ET
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166222/new-mexico-legislature-congress-amend-against-citizens-united
The Constitution of the United States can be amended in two formal ways: from the top down and from the bottom up.
But New Mexico legislators have found a third way and, hopefully, other state legislators around the country will follow their lead.
The US Constitution is traditionally amended via a process that begins with the endorsement of an amendment by the US House and US Senate and then the ratification of that amendment by the requisite three-fourths of state legislatures. That's the top-down route. The bottom-up route begins when two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.
But what if a state legislature tells Congress to get moving?
That's what happened over the weekend, when the New Mexico state Senate voted 20-9 to approve Senate Memorial 3, which calls on the Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The Citizens United ruling was one of several that opened the floodgates for corporate special-interest money to overwhelm the political process.
The New Mexico Senate vote, which follows on a January 31 vote by the New Mexico House, aligns the state with Hawaii in calling for the amendment. And it gives a big boost to the campaigning by Free Speech for People, Move to Amend, Common Cause and other groups that are working on various strategies to get communities and states nationwide to demand an amendment.
"This marks a major victory for the constitutional amendment movement to reclaim our democracy," says John Bonifaz, executive director of Free Speech for People, the national nonpartisan campaign launched on the day of the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to press for a Twenty-eighth Amendment to the US Constitution to overturn the ruling. "The Citizens United ruling presents a direct and serious threat to the integrity of our elections, unleashing a torrent of corporate money into our political process. The ruling is also the most extreme extension yet of a corporate rights doctrine which has been eroding our First Amendment and our US Constitution for the past 30 years. As with prior egregious Supreme Court rulings which threatened our democracy, we the people must exercise our power under Article V of the Constitution to enact a constitutional amendment which will preserve the promise of American self-government: of, for, and by the people."
Free Speech for People initiated the New Mexico push, and worked closely with New Mexico State Senators Steve Fischmann and Eric Griego and State Representative Mimi Stewart to advance it. Support came from the Center for Civic Policy, Common Cause New Mexico, the League of Women Voters of New Mexico, the New Mexico Green Chamber of Commerce, El Centro, the Southwest Organizing Project, All Families Matter, the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association, the Native American Voter Alliance, Progress Now and Move On.
The New Mexico move is important, as it comes at the start of a year when activist groups are seeking to ramp up support for an amendment.
"Through Amend 2012, the campaign we formally launched last month, Common Cause helped secure [victories in communities across the county]," says Common Cause President Bob Edgar. "As you know, Amend2012 aims to give voters in as many states as possible an opportunity to make their voices heard now, during the 2012 elections, on the need to overturn Citizens United. Common Cause is working to give voters the tools to put 'voter instruction' measures on the November ballot in as many states as possible, either by voter initiative or action by the state legislature. The measures would instruct Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment to make it clear that corporations are not people and authorize campaign spending limits."
The idea is catching on in the states. And with people who may be in Congress soon.
New Mexico Senator Eric Griego, an amendment proponent in that state, is running for the US House this year.
So, too, is Wisconsin state Representative Mark Pocan, D-Madison, who is co-sponsoring pro-amendment legislation.
Because so many state legislatures end up as Congressional contenders-and members of Congress-the fight to get states to tell Congress to amend the Constitution pays double bonuses. It sends a message and, depending on the election results this year, it could send more champions of the amendment movement to Congress.
John Nichols's new book on protests and politics, Uprising: How Wisconsin Renewed the Politics of Protest, from Madison to Wall Street, will be published next week by Nation Books. Follow John Nichols on Twitter @NicholsUprising.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.thenation.com/blog/165778/eleven-shocking-facts-about-campaign-finance ...
Eleven Shocking Facts About Campaign Finance
George Zornick on January 20, 2012 - 1:57 PM ET
It's been two years since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, allowing a torrent of secret money to flow into the political process.
To be clear, the corrupting influence of big money was distorting the democratic process for years before that decision. But it unquestionably made the problem worse, exacerbating both the volume and secrecy of campaign donations.
Here's eleven disturbing facts about the extent to which money is playing an increasing role in our politics:
* The amount of independent expenditure and electioneering communication spending by outside groups has quadrupled since 2006. [Center for Responsive Politics]
* The percentage of spending coming from groups that do not disclose their donors has risen from 1 percent to 47 percent since the 2006 mid-term elections. [Center for Responsive Politics]
* Campaign receipts for members of the House of Representatives totaled $1.9 billion in 2010-up from $781 million in 1998. [Committee for Economic Development]
* Outside groups spent more on political advertising in 2010 than party committees-for the first time in at least two decades. [Center for Responsive Politics]
* A shocking 72 percent of political advertising by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006. [Committee for Economic Development]
* In 2004, 97.9 percent of outside groups disclosed their donors. In 2010, 34.0 percent did. [Committee for Economic Development]
* In 2010, the US Chamber of Commerce spent $31,207,114 in electioneering communications. The contributions for which it disclosed the donors: $0. [Committee for Economic Development]
* Only 26,783 Americans donated more than $10,000 to federal campaigns in 2010-or, about one in 10,000 Americans. Their donations accounted for 24.3 percent of total campaign donations. [Sunlight Foundation]
* Average donation from that elite group was $28,913. (The median individual income in America is $26,364) [Sunlight Foundation]
* Amount the Karl Rove-led Crossroads GPS says it will spend on the 2012 elections: $240 million. [On the Media]
* Amount that President Obama has raised from the financial sector already for his 2012 re-election: $15.6 million [Washington Post]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Cashawna Parker (parkerc@ci.albany.ny.us)
Subject: Resolution Against Corporate Personhood
Date: Jan 6, 2012 12:17 PM
The resolution that the Albany Common Council passed is below.
Cashawna Parker
Senior Legislative Aide to the
Albany Common Council
(518) 434-5087
Council Members Calsolaro, Fahey, Golby, Konev, O'Brien, Sano and Smith introduced the following, which was approved:
Resolution Number 93.121.11R (As amended prior to introduction)
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE MOVE TO AMEND CAMPAIGN RELATING TO CORPORATE PERSONHOOD AS DECIDED IN CITIZENS UNITED VS. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; CALLING ON CONGRESS TO PASS LEGISLATION LIMITING CORPORATE PERSONHOOD TO THE HISTORIC PARAMETERS AS SET FORTH IN THE 1886 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY VS. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD; AND SUPPORTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF DONORS TO ORGANIZATIONS MAKING POLITICAL EXPENDITURES
WHEREAS, government of, by, and for the people has long been a cherished American value, and We The People's fundamental and inalienable right to self-govern, and thereby secure rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and;
WHEREAS, free and fair elections are essential to democracy and effective self-
governance, and;
WHEREAS, persons are rightfully recognized as human beings whose essential needs include clean air, clean water, safe and secure food, and;
WHEREAS, corporations are entirely human-made legal fictions created by express permission of We The People and our government, and;
WHEREAS, corporations can exist in perpetuity, can exist simultaneously in many nations at once, need only profit for survival, and exist solely through the legal charter imposed by the government of We The People, and;
WHEREAS, in addition to these advantages, the great wealth of large corporations allows them to wield coercive force of law to overpower human beings and communities that can affect We The People's exercise of our Constitutional rights, and;
WHEREAS, in the 1886 Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, the United States Supreme Court ruled that only certain, specified rights for "persons" can be extended to corporations, and this decision has been the basis for corporate personhood for more than one hundred years, until the Citizens United decision in 2010, and;
WHEREAS, in the dissenting opinion in the Citizens United decision, Justice Stevens wrote that, ". . . in a variety of contexts, we have held that speech can be regulated differentially on account of the speaker's identity, when identity is understood in categorical or institutional terms." The dissent concludes that ". . . the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people . . . .", and;
WHEREAS, in response to the Citizens United decision, United States Senator Charles Schumer introduced legislation to ban foreign-controlled corporations and government contractors from making political expenditures and also requiring disclosure of donors to organizations making political expenditures, and;
WHEREAS, corporations are not and have never been human beings, and therefore are rightfully subservient to human beings and governments as our legal creations, and;
WHEREAS, the recent Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision that rolled back the legal limits on corporate spending in the electoral process creates an unequal playing field and allows unlimited corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection, policy decisions and sway votes, and forces elected officials to divert their attention from The Peoples' business, or even vote against the interest of their human constituents, in order to ensure competitive campaign funds for their own re-election, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Albany states its support for the Move to Amend campaign relating to corporate personhood as decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and calling on Congress to pass legislation limiting corporate personhood to its historic parameters as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be transmitted to United States Senators Charles Schumer and Kirstin Gillibrand and United States Representative Paul Tonko.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "Freedman-Schnapp, Michael" mfreedman-schnapp@council.nyc.gov
Subject: NYC Citizens United resolution text
Date: Jan 6, 2012 11:41 AM
The text for Res 1172 can be found at this link and I have copied the text below as well.
Michael Freedman-Schnapp
Office of Councilmember Brad Lander
Director of Policy
mfreedman-schnapp@council.nyc.gov
718-499-1090/212-788-6969
http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1020081&GUID=7B877E8C-4823-4AC3-B283-406534448686&Options=ID|Text|&Search=1172
Res. No. 1172
Resolution opposing the United State Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution in Citizens United regarding the constitutional rights of corporations, supporting an amendment to the Constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of protections or "rights" of natural persons, specifically so that the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech, and calling on Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution.
By Council Members Lander, Mark-Viverito, The Speaker (Council Member Quinn), Brewer, Levin, Chin, James, Rose, Van Bramer, Garodnick, Vann, Gennaro, Barron, Comrie, Jackson, Palma, Reyna, Sanders Jr., Williams, Rodriguez, Koppell, Arroyo, Ferreras, Mendez., Crowley, Eugene and Wills
Whereas, In 2010 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, holding that independent spending on elections by corporations and other groups could not be limited by government regulations; and
Whereas, This decision rolled back the legal restrictions on corporate spending in the electoral process, allowing for unlimited corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection, and policy decisions; and
Whereas, In reaching its decision, a majority of the Supreme Court, relying on prior decisions, interpreted the First Amendment of the Constitution to afford corporations the same free speech protections as natural persons; and
Whereas, In his eloquent dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens rightly recognized that "corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established"; and
Whereas, The Court's decision in Citizens United severely hampers the ability of federal, state and local governments to enact reasonable campaign finance reforms and regulations regarding corporate political activity; and
Whereas, Corporations should not be afforded the entirety of protections or "rights" of natural persons, such that the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is a form of constitutionally protected speech; and
Whereas, several proposed amendments to the Constitution have been introduced in Congress that would allow governments to regulate the raising and spending of money by corporations to influence elections; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York opposes the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution in Citizens United regarding the constitutional rights of corporations, and supports amending the Constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of protections or "rights" of natural persons, specifically so that the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech, and calls on Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution.
SAG
LS# 3125
12/12/11
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.HuffingtonPost.com (also see http://www.NYCProgressives.com )...
New York City Council Passes Resolution Opposing Corporate Personhood
First Posted: 1/5/12 12:29 PM ET Updated: 1/5/12 01:54 PM ET
The New York City Council symbolically passed a resolution Wednesday opposing "corporate personhood." Resolution 1172 formally expressed disapproval of the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which declared that corporations have the same first amendment rights as people.
The bill, which urges Congress to take action against corporate personhood, was sponsored by councilmembers Brad Lander, Melissa Mark-Viverito and Steve Levin, all members of the Progressive Caucus. After the vote, the Caucus released a statement, which read in part:
"As our support of this resolution demonstrates, restoring confidence in government and strengthening democratic participation is a core principle of the Progressive Caucus. We believe that corporations should not share the same rights as people, that unlimited and unreported corporate donations meant to sway the electoral process should not be considered freedom of speech, and that the government should regulate the raising and spending of money by corporations intended to influence elections. We cannot allow corporate money to manipulate our democracy."
Occupy Wall Street's New York General Assembly voted to support the resolution. Corporate personhood has been a target of Occupy since the movement began in September.
The non-binding resolution passed along party lines with 41 yes-votes from Democrats, five no-votes from all five Council Republicans and one abstention from Democrat Peter Vallone.
Speaking at the hearing, Councilman Eric Ulrich (R-Queens) spoke against the resolution, but was nearly drowned out by the boos and hisses of Occupy Wall Street protesters in attendance, The Gotham Gazette reports. "Corporations are people," he said. "All their money goes back to the people."
The New York City Council joins a growing list of local governments across the US who have passed similar resolutions, including Los Angeles, Albany, Boulder and Oakland.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.CivSourceOnline.com ...
Cities, states pass resolutions against corporate personhood
January 4, 2012 @ Bailey McCann
Several cities and states are passing resolutions against corporate personhood. The resolutions are the result of Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which gave corporations the same first amendment rights as individuals and thereby opening the floodgates for money in politics in the US. Cities and states with rules governing political contributions on the books and even some without are hoping that these resolutions will curb the impact of that decision or provide momentum to overturn it completely.
Los Angeles, Oakland, Albany and Boulder have all passed city council resolutions invalidating the concept of corporate personhood. New York City voted this afternoon to join them, with a resolution creating clear dividing lines between the rights of corporations and citizens in Manhattan. The New York decision is notable for both the size of Manhattan but also the size of its business community and the potential impact of such a resolution. Cities across the country are looking at similar resolutions in attempt to restore order in their localities as Super Political Action Committees (PACs) make unprecedented forays into local elections.
On Friday, Montana's Supreme Court restored a 100-year old provision banning corporate spending in local politics. According to the court, even though the Supreme Court ruling strikes federal spending limits, it does not specifically prohibit state spending laws. The court held that the state's Corrupt Practices Act, thus complies with the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.
Vermont introduced a measure in the state legislature last week that calls on Congress to create a constitutional amendment separating the rights of individuals from those of corporations. California is expected to be the next state to take up a state-level resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/06-2 ...
Published on Tuesday, March 6, 2012 by Washington Post
Super Tuesday's Big Winner Is Already Settled
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
The polls haven't closed, but here's one thing we already know: The big winners of Super Tuesday are the super PACs and big-money politics. In the run-up to Tuesday's vote, the super PACs' farcically described "independent expenditures" were far greater than the spending of the candidates' campaigns.
A Las Vegas billionaire single-handedly has kept Newt Gingrich in the race. Mitt Romney's "vulture capitalist" biography may raise doubts in some voters' minds, but it has helped him sweep the money primary. And while Romney has found it hard to win significant support from Republican voters, his "independent" super PAC - Restore Our Future - has used that dough to carpet-bomb with negative ads any opponent who has risen to challenge him.
The supposed "independence" of the super PACs reaches barely a legal fiction. Former aides or fundraisers run the entities. The campaigns alert donors as to which "independent" entity is designated for support. President Obama is delegating Cabinet and White House officials to attend fundraisers for Priorities USA Action, his "independent" super PAC. His 2008 campaign director, David Plouffe, now coordinating messaging in the White House, is out helping to raise the money.
Ahead of Super Tuesday, the Romney campaign spent little money outside of Ohio. Not surprisingly, his "independent" super PAC ramped up its spending in the other states to spearhead the Romney attack. The Gingrich campaign took this to the point of absurdity, running no advertising in the Super Tuesday primaries while his super PAC, Winning Our Future - funded almost entirely by one donor - carried the banner, spending $3.7 million in the primary states.
The alleged independence of the super PACs lets them do the dirty work without the candidate taking responsibility. The result is an increasingly ugly campaign, deluged with negative attack ads. In Ohio, a key battleground state, the groups associated with Romney, Gingrich and Santorum spent about $4 million in advertising. Of the 11 presidential election commercials run on Ohio TV since February 1, all but one were negative attack ads, according to the Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group.
What we've seen, however, is merely the first glass before the bender, the blowout that will come this fall. The fall election will feature an estimated $3 billion in negative ads, many purveyed not by super PACs, which at least have to reveal their donors, but by associated "advocacy groups" that are not required to do so. That is where the corporations and the Wall Street barons are likely to play. The candidates will know who anted up the big money, but the voters will not.
The infamous Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, ruling that corporations as well as individuals could give unlimited amounts to "independent" expenditure entities, opened the floodgates. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled that corporations had the same rights as people to speech, and thus to unlimited expenditures in campaigns. That right might be balanced, he admitted, by the public concern about corruption of elections and officials. Then he bizarrely concluded - without bothering to offer any evidence - that independent corporate expenditures in elections, even in secret, "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
The Citizens United decision was to our democracy what congressional repeal of the Glass-Steagall regulation of banking was to our economy. In both cases, money had already eroded the regulatory system. But the formal repeal of regulation removed any sense of constraint.
Now, Montana's Supreme Court has offered the Supreme Court a chance to reconsider its folly. In defiance of Citizens United, the court upheld a 100-year-old state law that bans corporate money in campaigns, arguing that, given Montana's early history of corporate money corrupting elected officials, the state ban served a compelling interest. As Attorney General Steve Bullock noted, "Our legislature, our judges, down to the local county assessors, were almost bought and paid for. Mark Twain even said that, you know, the amount of money coming in in Montana makes the smell of corruption almost sweet."
The Supreme Court immediately issued a stay of the court ruling, pending a formal appeal. But in a separate note, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer suggested the Montana case offered the Supreme Court's five-person majority a change to reconsider a bad decision.
"Montana's experience and experience elsewhere," they wrote, "make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.' " (Note the echo of Kennedy's words in Citizens United.) The appeal "will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."
Across the country, a fierce reaction to the corruption of our politics has begun to build. Some 20 senators have joined in co-sponsoring a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The New Mexico legislature just passed a resolution calling on Congress to move to amend. Similar resolutions have been introduced in Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Maine. Major cities - New York, Portland, and Los Angeles - have also acted.
Since a constitutional amendment would take years to pass, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has introduced a bill requiring that super PACs and shadow groups disclose donors and spending every 24 hours on the Web. The groups' TV ads would have to list the top five donors. Corporations and unions would have to detail their political spending to stockholders and members. This modest effort to bring transparency to an opaque process faces entrenched Republican opposition.
We don't know who will win the elections this fall. But we know that the flood of independent and secret money will be unprecedented, funding salvos of negative ads that will foul the airwaves and disgust voters. And as voters increasingly view our politics as a corrupted playground for deep pocket donors, the Supreme Court majority might want to reconsider its unpopular decision.
© 2012 Washington Post
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment