The U.S. Supreme Court’s trajectory on campaign cash

In the April 11, 2011 edition of The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin connects the dots and announces what the United States Supreme Court has in store for us. The latest evidence is the attitude displayed by a majority of the justices during an argument concerning the constitutionality of an Arizona clean-money level-the-playing field election law. All of this conservative activism is allegedly being done to make sure that the government won't "stifle debate," even though the Court's approach is drowning out non-monied natural people and inviting large monied corporations to rig elections.

The implications of the Court’s approach are now becoming more clear. In the Citizens United case, the majority decreed, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, that corporations and other organizations could bypass the old limits by giving unlimited amounts not to candidates but to nominally independent groups that support them. (Corporations, of course, traditionally give more to Republicans.) But the logic of the decision—and the views expressed by the majority at the argument last week—suggests that in the future the Court will allow corporations to skip the third parties and give money directly to the candidates. It also implies that any limit on the size of contributions, by individuals or corporations, may now be held to be unconstitutional. The Court did suggest that requirements calling for the public disclosure of contributions might pass constitutional muster, but Congress shows no inclination to enact any such rules. President Obama’s DISCLOSE Act, which would have bolstered disclosure requirements, died in Congress last year. (Clarence Thomas, the silent Justice during oral arguments, believes that even disclosure violates First Amendment rights.)
For a succinct and accurate rendition of Citizens United, check out this video by Annie Leonard.

Continue ReadingThe U.S. Supreme Court’s trajectory on campaign cash

How to amend the U.S. Constitution in light of Citizens United

"Democracy is for People" is floating two candidates for Amending the U.S. Constitution to course correct after Citizen's United.

We’ve suggested a couple of possibilities at this point. One would state:
The freedoms of speech and the press, and the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances, as protected by this Constitution, shall not encompass the speech, association, or other activities of any corporation or other artificial entity created for business purposes, except for a corporation or entity whose business is the publication or broadcasting of information, when such corporation or entity is engaged in that business. A corporation or other artificial entity created for business purposes includes a corporation or entity that, although not itself engaged in business pursuits, receives the majority of its funding from other corporations or artificial entities created for business purposes.
Another possibility would be:
Congress and the States may make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the speech and association of corporations and other artificial entities created for business purposes. This article shall not authorize restrictions not otherwise permissible on the freedom of speech or of the press enjoyed by a corporation or entity whose business is the publication or broadcasting of information, when such corporation or entity is engaged in that business. A corporation or other artificial entity created for business purposes includes a corporation or entity that, although not itself engaged in business pursuits, receives the majority of its funding from other corporations or artificial entities created for business purposes.
These two possibilities would have somewhat different implications in practice, but both would permit Congress to regulate political spending by business corporations. There are other possible approaches. These suggestions are just the beginning of what must be a thoughtful discussion to determine the best language to protect real people’s right to speak freely and to protect the press from government censorship, while making clear that these rights do not extend to corporations’ speech (except for speech by the media).
Democracy Is For People is a project of Public Citizen.

Continue ReadingHow to amend the U.S. Constitution in light of Citizens United

Annie Leonard tells the story of Citizen’s United in 9 minutes

Annie Leonard does a great job of summarizing the problem with Citizen's United in this eight minute video. If you agree, please do consider it sharing it with others. You'll find more of Annie's well-crafted stories at her main website, named after her first project, "The Story of Stuff." Consider, for instance, her no nonsense examination of the false-solution of "Cap and Trade." I had joined a loud chorus critical of Citizen's United with this post.

Continue ReadingAnnie Leonard tells the story of Citizen’s United in 9 minutes

Feingold v. Citizens United

Former Senator Russ Feingold has taken on Citizen's United by founding Progressives United:

Launching on Wednesday, Progressives United is an attempt to to build a grassroots effort aimed at mitigating the effects of, and eventually overturning, the Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United decision that opened the floodgates to corporate spending in the U.S. electoral system. In addition to online mobilization, the political action committee (PAC) will support progressive candidates at the local, state and national levels, as well as holding the media and elected officials accountable on the group's key priorities.
Here's more on Feingold and his new organization from Huffpo.

Continue ReadingFeingold v. Citizens United

This is why it’s so difficult to get good people to run for political office

Help Wanted:

Now Hiring U.S. Senators and Representatives

We are in desperate need for honest and intelligent citizens of the United States to apply for the jobs of Senators and Representatives as specified in Article I of the United States Constitution. Job Duty: To do anything necessary to keep getting re-elected. Job Requirements: - You must be willing to raise $1,000,000 every two years ($10,000/week for a Representative) or $6,000,000 every six years (about $20,000/week for Senator). To raise one million dollars, you can either convince 10,000 citizens to give you $100 each or you can make secret promises to a few hundred large corporations. It’s your choice. - You must be willing to vote to pass 2,000-page hyper-technical and incoherent bills that were drafted by corporate lobbyists. - You must spend most of your time on the job secretly promising favors to large companies and asking them for money, while simultaneously denying to your constituents that you’ve made secret promises. - You must be willing to expose yourself, your family and your friends to the constant risk of being shot by incoherent disgruntled people. - You must be willing to find a way to avoid spending time with lower-class and middle-class Americans. - You must be willing to expose yourself to constant ridicule and false charges trumped up by the media to sell advertisements. Everything embarrassing you’ve ever done will appear in national publications, especially if it is irrelevant to the issues facing this country. - Once you start campaigning for the very first time, you must agree to stop talking candidly about anything. - You must support America’s war-machine or else you will be called a traitor and run out of office. - You must be willing to expose your family and your closest friends to massive invasions of their privacy. - You must pretend to explain and solve complex social issues using only 8-second sound bites. - You must be willing to expose yourself to scandalous and false Swift-Boating attacks. - Your door must always be open to lobbyists for banks, insurance companies and telecoms. - To win re-election, you must get down in the dirt and personally hurl false charges against your opponent, because the ends will justify the means. - You must constantly speak of our duty to our children while simultaneously crushing the next generation with federal debt, and providing the nation's children with terrible educations.

Continue ReadingThis is why it’s so difficult to get good people to run for political office