U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals.

On September 4, 2009, Bill Moyers hosted Trevor Potter, president and general counsel of The Campaign Legal Center (and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission), and Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment attorney. You can view the entire discussion here. The topic is whether longstanding federal election laws should be held unconstitutional so that corporations can freely spend unlimited amounts of money (e.g., in the form of movies, books, and other private initiatives) in order to directly affect the outcome of federal political campaigns. The case is Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. Many legal commentators are suggesting the Supreme Court has already suggested that it leaning in favor of the corporations on this issue. And we can almost guarantee how Chief Justice John Roberts is going to vote on this issue (and see here). I highly recommend viewing this discussion. I thought that Abrams looked very much like a man who was being paid big money to take position he knew to be reprehensible. On the other hand, Trevor Potter is taking a position that looks out for people like you and me. I realize that powerful corporate interests have already made puppets out of Congress, the SEC, the FDA and many other federal agencies (see these recent examples regarding tobacco legislation and the rejection of the bankruptcy cram-down option). With this as the context, I believe that Citizens United boils down to a simple question: Should our government be at least somewhat run by ordinary people or should corporate money flow even more freely at election time (much more than it flows already), allowing our federal government to be taken over entirely by powerful corporations driven almost entirely by the profit motive? Here are a few excerpts from Moyers’ discussion with Potter and Abrams:

TREVOR POTTER: This is a case about corporate money. If this case is won by the corporation, we will be in the ironic situation where corporations will have no limits on what they can spend in elections and unions still will. So, it's important to remember we're talking about corporations. Corporations exist solely to make money. Amassing economic power. They want, if they could get it out of government, monopolies. They want the ability to defeat their competitors. And if they can use government to do that, they will. Individuals have a whole range of interests. Individuals go to church, they care about religious and social issues, they care about the future of the country. They're voters.

So, they have a range of issues at stake that corporations don't have. Corporations just want to make money. So, if you let the corporation with a privileged economic legal position loose in the political sphere, when we're deciding who to elect, I think you are giving them an enormous advantage over individuals and not a healthy one for our democracy. . . . [C]orporations have a different status. And they ought to be focused on the economic marketplace and not the political marketplace.

FLOYD ABRAMS: You're opening the faucet, so to speak, so that more speech can occur. I don't think it's a can of worms to say that corporations, and it is unions as well, ought to be able to participate in the give and take of the democratic processes in the country. From my perspective, at least, the notion of saying that corporations and unions should be out of the picture either because they're too powerful, or because of the way their money has been created, is so inconsistent with the sort of First Amendment approach that we take in everything else, where we say over and over again, we don't care who the speaker is, we don't care where the speaker's coming from. And speech, we think, is, as a generality, a good thing . . .

BILL MOYERS: But we're not talking about free press issues here. We're talking about the power of an organized economic interest to spend vast sums of money that individuals can't spend . . . Would you disagree with the claim that big business dominates the political discussion today? Whether it's the drug industry or the health insurance industry? Big business is the dominant force in Washington. I mean, I see that as a journalist . . . we're not talking about free press issues here. We're talking about the power of an organized economic interest to spend vast sums of money that individuals can't spend.

It is important to deny powerful profit-seeking organizations the right to skew federal election results even more than they do currently. If the Supreme Court goes the wrong way on this issue, it would even make a mockery out of clean-money initiatives, such as this plan being promoted by Common Cause and this plan by Public Citizen.

Continue ReadingU.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals.

Shout from your rooftop in solidarity with the people of Iran

I will never forget the images of Pope John Paul II arriving in Poland in June of 1979. The Pope descended from his plane, kneeled, bent and kissed the ground of his beloved homeland. The Pope arrived as a pilgrim, news reports said. The Polish people saw more, perhaps a glimpse of freedom in the offing where their historic contributions and ties to the world were once again recognized as Polish, not as a Warsaw Pact satellite of the communist USSR. Something similar is going on now in the Islamic Republic of Iran. After an historic election where the chosen candidate of the ruling elite was challenged, the results were announced mere hours after the paper ballots were cast, and current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared the winner. Some say the Iranian voters’ ballots were not even counted. Reports of unrest due to concerns of electoral fraud continue, although foreign media have been barred from Iran Many of the supporters of the rival candidate for President have taken to the roofs and shouting, “Allahu Akbar!” which I’ve seen translated as “God is the Greatest!” and “God is Great!” Without a doubt, there is continued opposition to the hard line polices of President Ahmadinejad which many in Iran believe do not reflect the country’s history and traditions. It has become a staple of the ruling council to denounce protesters as incited by the West, mostly the UK, where two diplomats were thrown out of Iran. The UK responded by giving the heave to two Iranian embassy personnel. But, the Iranian government raised the ante on the UK, yesterday and detained many members of the diplomatic staff assigned to Iran in violation of international law. It remains an issue is whether there what actions may be taken in solidarity with the aspirations of Iranians by supporters of freedom around the world. First, one must caution forbearance. If many take up the rhetoric of the far right in the US calling for swift, strong action against Iran there will be a backlash against the protesters in Iran. Such is already in the offing as the media have been closed down, and the government tries to spin the whole thing as a plot by the West and points to such rhetoric in support of its claims. Those which make such harsh statements and urge imprudent action give aid and comfort to the enemies of freedom in Iran. So, what then for those worldwide which support the Iranian people’s return to the world community and to again recognize Iran’s past contributions and continuing ability to contribute to the world at large? I offer several ideas. We could tie a green ribbon ‘round the old oak trees. Green is the color of the party of the opposition in Iran. We could join in solidarity with the aspirations of the protestors and go onto our rooftops or just go outside and shout or say; “God is Great!” at midnight Tehran time (about 2:30 p.m. CST [+4 GMT]). And ask that peace be with our Iranian brothers and sisters.

Continue ReadingShout from your rooftop in solidarity with the people of Iran

Song from Iran and other news

For the past few years, I've been receiving emails and attachments from a woman with close ties to Iran. Along with this Youtube she wrote the following:

Here is a song gifted to the new Iran emerging from the 2009 election by the one of the greatest musicians of present day Iran, Mohamad Reza Shajarian. And he rightly calls it "Iran, the land of hope.
She indicates that letters are circulating in Iran to weaken the grip of Mr. Ahmadinejad's government by doing the following:

o Refusing to give ads to the state run TV, and newspapers serving as the voice of the government. o Pulling out money invested in banks and financial institutions run by the government or by the revolutionary guards. o Refraining from contributing to the charity boxes scattered throughout towns all across the country. Protesting has become incredibly dangerous.

Continue ReadingSong from Iran and other news

The sounds of freedom at night in Iran

Andrew Sullivan has had ongoing detailed coverage of the post-election events in Iran, including this short post and video of the sounds of freedom being called out from the rooftops at night. Interesting, how American neoconservatives (and Israel conservatives) could only talk of bombing Iran, year after year, demonizing the entire country based upon the belligerence of high-placed officials. Iran now also has a face of youth, hope and potential change, though the situation is incredibly dangerous at the moment. I would add that Barack Obama has shown masterful restraint and read-between-the-lines encouragement to the forces of freedom and dissent in Iran:

Continue ReadingThe sounds of freedom at night in Iran