citsunited
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">text capt 519</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">citsunited519</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> ---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">capt 316 519</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">this is mostly about the CASE, see also CU org node and CU tag</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see also dark $ and mcconnell staff network</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NEW</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citizens-united"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citizens-united</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">many grafs</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx many</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div>
</div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">report</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS REPORT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">— By Karl Evers-Hillstrom, with contributions from researchers Doug Weber, Anna Massoglia, Andrew Mayersohn, Grace Haley, Sarah Bryner and Alex Baumgart, Jan. 14, 2020. Download PDF version (3MB).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The proliferation of controversial political advertisements in the past decade isn't a coincidence. It's a direct result of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which helped pump billions of dollars into politics from outside sources that are supposed to be untethered from candidates or political parties.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the longstanding prohibition on independent expenditures by corporations violated the First Amendment. With its decision, the court allowed corporations, including nonprofits, and labor unions to spend unlimited sums to support or oppose political candidates. The majority made the case that political spending from independent actors, even from powerful corporations, was not a corrupting influence on those in office.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The decade that followed was by far the most expensive in the history of U.S. elections. Independent groups spent billions to influence crucial races, supplanting political parties and morphing into extensions of candidate campaigns. Wealthy donors flexed their expanded political power by injecting unprecedented sums into elections. And transparency eroded as "dark money" groups, keeping their sources of funding secret, emerged as political powerhouses.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The explosion of big money and secret spending wasn't spurred on by Citizens United alone. It was enabled by a number of court decisions that surgically removed several restrictions in campaign finance law, and emboldened by inaction from Congress and gridlock within the Federal Election Commission. Those government bodies remain deeply divided, meaning the mishmash of campaign finance rules spawned by the Supreme Court will likely remain in place in 2020 and beyond.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"In our 35 years of following the money, we've never seen a court decision transform the campaign finance system as drastically as Citizens United," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "We have a decade of evidence, demonstrated by nearly one billion dark money dollars, that the Supreme Court got it wrong when they said political spending from independent groups would be coupled with necessary disclosure."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">OpenSecrets' original research indicates:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite fears that elections would be dominated by corporations, the biggest political players are actually wealthy individual donors. The 10 most generous donors and their spouses injected $1.2 billion into federal elections over the last decade. That tiny group of major donors accounted for 7 percent of total election-related giving in 2018, up from less than 1 percent a decade prior.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The balance of political power shifted from political parties to outside groups that can spend unlimited sums to bolster their preferred candidates. Election-related spending from non-party independent groups ballooned to $4.5 billion over the decade. It totaled just $750 million over the two decades prior.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even political candidates found themselves dwarfed by independent groups that in many cases morphed into effective arms of political campaigns and parties. Outside spending surpassed candidate spending in 126 races since the ruling. That happened just 15 times in the five election cycles prior.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite promises from the court that monied interests would be required to reveal their political giving, the ruling gave new powers to dark money organizations. Groups that don't disclose their donors flooded elections with $963 million in outside spending, compared to a paltry $129 million over the previous decade.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Major corporations didn't take full advantage of their new political powers. Corporations accounted for no more than one-tenth of independent groups' fundraising in each election cycle since the ruling. But secretly funded nonprofits and trade associations that influence elections take money from major companies in amounts that are mostly unknown.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The ruling didn't reverse the ban on foreign money in elections, but it provided opportunities for foreign actors to secretly funnel money to elections through nonprofits and shell companies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[</font><span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">Follow the Citizens United Money:</span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Courts Trump Congress</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Super PACs Prevail</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Modern Megadonor</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dark Money Infiltrates Elections</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The Courts Trump Congress]</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In January 2008, Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, released a 90-minute documentary highly critical of then-presidential contender Hillary Clinton.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Before its release, the group wanted to make the movie available on-demand — and pay to advertise the film — within 30 days of the 2008 primary election, an action that likely would have violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The law originally stipulated that corporations, including nonprofits, could not use money from their treasuries to fund electioneering communications — messages that mention a political candidate within close proximity to an election. An earlier 2007 Supreme Court ruling, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, weakened the rule so the ban only applied to communications that rise to the level of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Anticipating penalties over the promotion of its film, Citizens United sued the FEC in December 2007. It argued that the ban on corporate-funded express advocacy, as well as its disclosure and disclaimer requirements, were unconstitutional in the case of this on-demand movie. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the FEC, laying out countless examples in which the film tries to convince viewers to vote against Clinton.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United appealed, bringing the case to the Supreme Court, which heard its first oral arguments in March 2009. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that the film could only be viewed as expressly advocating for Clinton's defeat. But after multiple oral arguments, the court's five conservative justices ultimately ruled that laws restricting political speech of corporations were unconstitutional.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Citizens United majority relied on the arguments made by Supreme Court justices in 1976's Buckley v. Valeo in which the court struck down spending limits on independent expenditures. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that independent spending from corporations or other actors to support or oppose candidates would not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy," Kennedy wrote. "By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The court overruled two major Supreme Court decisions, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC, allowing corporations and labor unions to use money from their treasuries to fund electioneering expenses as well as independent expenditures that expressly advocate for or against political candidates.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In Speechnow v. FEC, an appeals court case heard later in 2010, judges applied the Citizens United precedent to PACs. The court ruled that a political committee may accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions as long as they do not contribute to candidates or coordinate their activities with candidates or parties. The FEC subsequently allowed the creation of independent expenditure-only committees, now known as super PACs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ensuing court rulings further implemented the new precedent. In 2011, a district court ruled in Carey v. FEC that PACs could accept unlimited contributions to one bank account solely for the purpose of independent expenditures and maintain a segregated account that can give money to candidates. The FEC subsequently allowed the creation of hybrid PACs, which can act as a PAC and super PAC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2014, the court struck down another section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that limited how much an individual donor could give to candidates and parties every election cycle. The court ruled 5-4 in McCutcheon v. FEC that these limits were unconstitutional, expanding on its own logic in Citizens United that wealthy donors' increased access with candidates is not corruption.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The decision enabled the growth of joint fundraising committees that solicit large checks from a handful of wealthy donors and distribute the money among various committees. With these committees, Hillary Clinton raised $577 million for her campaign and Democratic party committees in 2016, and President Donald Trump is raising unprecedented sums for his 2020 reelection effort.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Years prior, the court dealt another blow to the law meant to limit the power of wealthy individuals. In 2008's Davis v. FEC, the court struck down the Millionaire's Amendment, which allowed opponents of wealthy self-funding congressional candidates to bypass contribution limits. In recent cycles, self-funding candidates such as Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Rep. David Trone (D-Md.) have found success.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Following the court's string of rulings, campaign contribution limits to candidates, traditional PACs and parties remained intact. The court reaffirmed the ban on unlimited soft money contributions to political parties for the purpose of "party-building" expenses, and the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates and parties. The court also affirmed the need for campaign contributions to be disclosed to the public, an assurance that was undermined by the majority's decision that granted new powers to dark money groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By surgically removing sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act while keeping some parts intact, the court left behind a hodgepodge of rules governing the campaign finance system to this day.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Super PACs Prevail</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Money talks. And voters often listen.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The candidate with more money wins more often than not. A larger war chest means more money to hire staffers, produce ads, raise additional funds, travel and establish physical infrastructure.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While most candidates build their campaign coffers over the course of several months, super PACs may solicit seven-figure checks and instantly convert them into an influx of ads, mailers or other communications that can appear nearly indistinguishable from those of the candidates.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In some of the most competitive races, outside groups wage ad wars of their own, battling for spending superiority to influence voters. Since the 2010 midterms, outside spending has surpassed candidate spending in 126 congressional races. In the five cycles prior, that phenomenon occurred just 15 times.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That outside spending is the primary consequence of Citizens United, with non-party groups now dominating presidential elections and the most tightly contested House and Senate contests. Non-party outside groups have spent nearly $4.5 billion influencing elections since the 2010 cycle. Over the previous two decades, they spent a combined $750 million.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This spending contributes to record-breakingly expensive races. When adjusting for inflation, nine of the 10 most expensive non-special election House races ever occurred in the 2018 election cycle. California House races for the 25th and 48th congressional districts were each bombarded with more than $20 million in outside spending. No non-special election House race had reached that mark before.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Eight of the top 10 most expensive Senate races ever occurred after Citizens United with inflation factored in</b>. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">With $213 million spent — including $97 million in outside spending — the hotly contested 2018 Florida Senate race is the most expensive ever. The 2016 Senate battle between Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Democrat Katie McGinty was blanketed by $127 million in outside spending. The candidates spent $53 million.</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Since Citizens United, spending by super PACs and dark money groups, along with non-party independent groups, has accounted for a larger proportion of total election-related spending with each midterm and presidential election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Candidate and party spending, as a result, has declined as a share of the total. Like super PACs, political party committees may make independent expenditures. But they are hindered by contribution limits and cannot take money from corporations or unions. In 2004, parties spent a record $265 million on outside spending, a figure that hasn't been surpassed since.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Some super PACs are created for the purpose of bypassing parties and backing candidates who might not normally get party support. Amid the 2010 Tea Party movement in conservative politics, super PACs such as <b>Club for Growth Action and Ending Spending Action Fund emerged as a thorn in the GOP's side</b>. </span>They spent millions backing their preferred Republicans in primaries, in some cases endorsing primary challenges against GOP-backed lawmakers. That intervention may have cost Republicans Indiana's Senate seat in 2012 when conservative super PACs organized to take down Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) in support of losing Republican Richard Mourdock.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other super PACs assumed the role that parties might normally play in tightly contested elections, only now they could solicit unlimited sums from wealthy donors. Senate Majority PAC and Senate Leadership Fund launched with the blessing of Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Mitch McConnell, respectively. On the House side, party leaders helped launch the liberal House Majority PAC and the conservative Congressional Leadership PAC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>As Kennedy wrote in Citizens United, these groups are supposed to be independent and cannot coordinate their efforts with candidates or parties. It didn't take long until that theory was irreparably damaged.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some super PACs effectively operate as extensions of the campaign. They offer donors a way to continue supporting their candidate after they hit maximum candidate contribution limits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2012, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney attended fundraisers for their own respective super PACs. To stay within the law, the presidential hopefuls avoided explicitly asking their supporters to give to the unlimited-spending groups. Super PACs tied to party leaders spent $389 million boosting candidates in 2012, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all super PAC spending.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Candidates and parties have exposed the countless loopholes in coordination rules over the last decade. One of the more ridiculous episodes of coordination took place in 2014, when the two major parties communicated with outside groups in code in public Twitter posts to concoct their ad buying strategy. The effort abused FEC rules that allow outside groups to use information from candidates or parties that is distributed on a public forum.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jeb Bush raised money for Right to Rise USA, a super PAC backing his 2016 presidential bid, before he officially announced his candidacy, successfully avoiding unlawful coordination. Effectively an arm of the campaign, the group spent $84 million on pro-Bush ads, some of which looked eerily similar to the Bush campaign's ads.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bush wasn't alone. Most of the top Republicans in that race had their own super PAC. The result was an unprecedented $531 million in outside spending by single-candidate super PACs in the 2016 cycle.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump was the exception. The real estate mogul didn't have his own super PAC in the primary. He used that fact to his potential advantage, accusing his opponents of being "in total cahoots" with their closely tied outside groups and acting as "puppets" for megadonors such as the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. He railed against modern campaign finance rules, pledging to "fix that system" and calling super PACs "corrupt."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2016 debates</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Then-candidate Donald Trump attacked his Republican opponents for having closely tied super PACs. (Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That campaign promise never materialized. After winning the Republican nomination, Trump effectively dropped his opposition to super PACs. Numerous groups, including an Adelson-backed super PAC, emerged late to back Trump in his upset victory. Trump claimed that Adelson would back his Republican opponents in 2015 to influence them. But it was Trump who found himself pushing for Adelson's interests as president.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Trump has embraced the super PAC during his time in the White House. In May 2019,<b> Trump endorsed a super PAC, America First Action</b>, as the campaign's only "approved" outside group. In November, Trump headlined a big-ticket fundraiser for the group, which is supposed to be independent of the Trump campaign.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trump era highlights how some super PACs can be closely connected to a campaign while others are truly independent. A number of outside groups are raising money in Trump's name despite being disavowed by the Trump campaign, which is powerless to stop them.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But America First Action is widely viewed as an arm of the Trump campaign, even by those attempting to curry favor with the president. For example, Steel tube manufacturer Zekelman Industries gave $1.75 million to the group in 2018 as it aired ads attacking various Democrats. The large gift was approved by the company's Canadian CEO Barry Zekelman, who was personally lobbying the administration over its steel policy at the time.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, associates of Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, made a $325,000 contribution to America First Action through a shell company.</b> They were later indicted for allegedly making straw contributions on behalf of a Ukrainian government official who sought to influence the Trump administration. Foreign nationals are barred from making political contributions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump's flip-flop on super PACs isn't unprecedented. Obama routinely blasted super PACs and pledged in 2011 that he would not fundraise for them. The campaign reversed course just seven months later, giving former White House aides the green light to launch a super PAC, Priorities USA Action. Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina wrote that the campaign would not "unilaterally disarm" and let Republicans dominate the super PAC landscape.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The 2020 election initially looked like it would be different. Each of the top Democratic contenders launched their campaigns with the promise that they would not embrace super PACs. They coupled that pledge with the goal of supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Former Vice President Joe Biden stuck by his pledge only until the campaign experienced the first sign of trouble. In October 2019, the Biden campaign, low on cash and having already taken a large chunk of its money from donors who already donated the maximum amount, dropped its opposition to a super PAC. In less than a week, longtime Biden aides launched a super PAC, Unite the Country. Within a month, the group spent a whopping $2.3 million on ads supporting Biden.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Biden</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Presidential candidate Joe Biden was boosted by millions in super PAC support through the end of 2019. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Whether a candidate supports a super PAC appears to impact the group's success with wealthy donors. A super PAC supporting Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Dream United, shut down shortly after Booker denounced outside spending on his behalf. The group's founder said that Booker's donors were "strictly adhering" to the presidential hopeful's super PAC policy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Outside groups are finding all kinds of encouragement from critical Senate candidates ahead of 2020. As Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) faced attacks from Democratic dark money groups and super PACs, she openly pleaded for outside support on the airwaves ahead of her 2020 election. She said her campaign couldn't afford to air multi-million dollar television ad blitzes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"We need close air support to show up," McSally told Republicans in December. "There's outside groups. We can't talk to them. We can't invite them, but we pray for them every day."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Campaign aides for Democrat Amy McGrath, who hopes to unseat Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2020, said they "strongly encourage" donors to give to a new super PAC called Fire Mitch Save America.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"I think the signal is for people who are interested in contributing beyond the legal limits, they should have confidence to contribute to the Super PAC," McGrath's campaign manager told the Lexington Herald Leader.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) invited outside support by uploading six minutes of soundless, high-resolution campaign footage to YouTube. By publicly publishing b-roll, candidates legally provide super PACs with footage for their ads. A group backing her campaign, 1820 PAC, used the footage in pro-Collins ads. Funded mostly by New York investor Stephen Schwarzman, the group spent $701,000 supporting Collins through mid-January.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By the letter of the law, campaign coordination with outside groups is illegal. But the FEC, tasked with enforcing campaign finance law, has not once penalized a political candidate or group for unlawful coordination since Citizens United.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The only instance of campaign coordination being punished took place in 2015. A Virginia Republican operative was convicted in federal court of illegally coordinating super PAC spending with a congressional campaign he was running. It was the Justice Department, not the FEC, that brought the case. Justice Department officials noted at the time that illegal coordination is "difficult to detect" and urged "party or campaign insiders to come forward."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The FEC has become synonymous with paralysis in recent years. The agency has up to six members — with several seats often left vacant due to partisan impasse in Congress — and no more than three commissioners may be members of the same party. Official actions require four votes, leading to "deadlocks" where Republican and Democratic commissioners can't agree on the best course of action. The divide is ideological in nature. Republicans argue that strict application of campaign finance laws chills free speech, using that logic to consistently throw out complaints levied against members of both parties. Democrats say Republicans fail to investigate credible evidence of campaign finance violations by members of both parties.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fec</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>As of January 2020, the FEC doesn’t have enough members to conduct meetings or pursue investigations. </b>(Sarah Silbiger/CQ Roll Call)]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In one high-profile example, Republican commissioners dismissed a complaint alleging that Hillary Clinton coordinated with a closely tied hybrid PAC, Correct the Record, on campaign messaging and tactics, going against recommendations from the agency's top lawyer. The commission's lone Democrat and independent voted to move the investigation forward.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Republicans in Congress also cite free speech concerns when fighting Democratic bills meant to tighten campaign finance rules. The divide between the parties is stark, despite the fact that both use super PACs and dark money groups to win elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Republicans have received more outside support than Democrats since Citizens United. Over the last decade, conservative non-party outside groups spent $2.6 billion on outside spending compared to liberal groups' $1.7 billion. The numbers are skewed by the 2012 election where Democrats were outspent by independent groups 2-to-1 but still held the presidency and the Senate. The 2018 midterms, marked by massive Democratic gains in the House, was the first election cycle since Citizens United that Democratic outside groups outspent their Republican counterparts.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Some Democrats feared that corporations would dominate electoral politics thanks to the Citizens United decision. For the most part, that didn't happen.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Corporations continue to curry influence with lawmakers by donating through traditional PACs, which are funded by wealthy executives and are subject to contribution limits. They also spend heavily on lobbying and public relations campaigns, not all of which is disclosed to the public, to sway lawmakers over specific issues.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But most corporations don't make independent expenditures or give to super PACs at the federal level. Major companies have stayed away due to the risk of backlash from consumers and resentment from lawmakers they want to sway. OpenSecrets found that just 36 companies on the S&P 500 contributed $25,000 or more to super PACs since 2012. The largest donors on that list are <b>Republican-backing oil & gas companies such as Chevron and NextEra Energy.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Corporations gave $301 million to super PACs and hybrid PACs from the 2012 to 2018 cycles, 87 percent of which went to conservative groups. </b>These contributions made up 10 percent of funding to these groups in the 2012 cycle, a high water mark. That figure dipped to just 5 percent in 2018.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Some U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies have given million-dollar gifts to super PACs. The pro-Jeb Bush Right to Rise USA took $1.3 million from a Chinese-owned company, resulting in a rare fine from the FEC. I</span>n this case, the FEC had evidence that Chinese nationals in control of the company facilitated the contribution, thanks to an earlier report from The Intercept. Commissioners have not been able to agree on how subsidiaries of foreign companies should be treated under law.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The most popular destination for corporate funds are the Republican presidential super PACs such as Bush's Right to Rise ($26 million) and Romney's Restore Our Future ($28 million) and Republican Party-connected groups like <b>American Crossroads ($39 million) and Senate Leadership Fund ($34 million)</b></span><b>.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The amount of election-related giving from corporations is almost certainly higher than disclosed. That's because corporations prefer to fund trade associations and politically active 501(c)(4) groups that don't disclose their donors, as discussed in this report's dark money section.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Corporations are often compared to labor unions in the scope of Citizens United. Corporations mostly give to Republican efforts, while labor unions are mostly united behind Democrats. Both were given increased political power following the ruling.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Labor unions were among the top outside spenders for Democrats in the years before Citizens United. They engaged in express advocacy to support or oppose candidates using traditional PACs and used treasury funds to distribute policy messages to union members in what the FEC calls communication costs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Unions took advantage of Citizens United by creating their own network of super PACs and giving heavily to Democratic-allied outside groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Labor's efforts swelled in 2016 as they organized to oppose Trump. That cycle, unions gave $91 million to unaffiliated outside groups and spent $92 million through their own PACs, super PACs and union treasuries. United We Can, a super PAC backed by the Service Employees International Union, spent $12 million unsuccessfully supporting Clinton over Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Unions are effectively funded by small donors, as they receive their funding from dues paid by their vast network of donors. Unions are more transparent than corporations as they must disclose their contributions to political groups, including those that don't disclose their donors. Still, that information isn't made public until after voters go to the polls.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While corporations and unions gained potential political power as a result of Citizens United, it's individual donors who are fueling the explosion of money in recent elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The Modern Megadonor</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Since Citizens United, the top 10 donors and their spouses gave a combined $1.1 billion to outside groups such as super PACs. The top 100 donors and their spouses to these unlimited spending groups accounted for over $2 billion. In an era where outside groups fill crucial roles, between functioning as arms of political parties or as extensions of political campaigns, wealthy donors are indispensable.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Most people will never give to a super PAC. And even among super PAC donors, a tiny minority accounts for most of the money. The top 1 percent of super PAC donors accounted for 96 percent of funding to these groups in 2018. Together, those 1,562 donors gave $818 million. The rest of the super PAC donors gave just $34 million</span>.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That's in contrast to the record numbers of Americans giving money to political candidates in the most recent presidential and midterm election cycles. High-profile candidates for Congress and the presidency rely on armies of small donors to fund their campaigns. But one check from a wealthy donor, such as 2020 Democratic presidential contender Michael Bloomberg's record $20 million gift to the liberal Senate Majority PAC, could effectively neutralize the efforts of thousands, even millions, of small donors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the two decades before Citizens United, Bloomberg gave less than $1 million to federal candidates and groups. He's given $163 million since the ruling, with his efforts helping gun control groups outspend gun rights groups for the first time in 2018.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The former New York City mayor may have been influential in 2018, but he is dwarfed over the last decade by casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, a physician. The two gave $306 million entirely to Republican candidates and causes, including a single-cycle record $124 million in 2018. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely tied with Republican House leaders, received $55 million from the Las Vegas billionaires.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Billionaire donors aren't new. But they didn't have as many ways to directly influence elections before Citizens United. Much of that money went to 527 organizations, political groups that ran politically focused ads but could not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of federal candidates. Wealthy individuals had the option to self-fund independent expenditures and sponsor ads themselves, but rarely did so. During the 2008 presidential election, the most expensive of its kind at the time, the 10 largest donors accounted for $37 million in total giving.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ten years later, the top 10 largest donors and their spouses gave $447 million, accounting for 7 percent of all election-related giving in the 2018 cycle. Ninety-seven percent of that cash went to outside spending groups such as super PACs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Super PAC giving is dominated by men, who on average, hold significantly more wealth than women. Economic disparities, including the racialized and gendered wealth gap, mean that women and people of color have fewer resources to spend politically. Men accounted for at least 80 percent of individual contributions to outside groups in every completed election cycle since the Citizens United decision. Since the 2010 cycle, men have given nearly $2.5 billion to outside groups, compared to less than $584 million from women.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That discrepancy stays consistent in recent cycles as women give more to candidates, parties and traditional PACs — known as "hard money" — now then they did in previous decades. In 1990, women accounted for just 22 percent of itemized hard money contributions. By 2000, that number crept up to 28 percent, and in both 2016 and 2018 women accounted for one-third of itemized contributions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Super PACs rely on big donations, and women on average to give in much smaller amounts than men. More than 1 million women have already donated to 2020 presidential candidates, nearly keeping pace with the number of men. But for every itemized dollar going to a presidential candidate, about 57 cents comes from a man and 43 cents from a woman.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Republican and conservative groups ($273 million) received more money from women than Democratic and liberal groups ($171 million). But Miriam Adelson, who has given $144 million since 2010, single handedly accounts for over half of that sum.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Adelson</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Miriam and Sheldon Adelson have given more than $306 million to Republican candidates and causes since 2010. (Saul Loeb/AFP)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Super PAC contributors are partisan, with almost all of the megadonors giving their money to outside groups supporting one party or the other. Of the 50 most generous donors to outside groups since Citizens United, only billionaire Boston investor Seth Klarman gave significant funds to both conservative and liberal outside groups. That's because Klarman started the decade backing Republican-allied groups but shifted his contributions to Democratic super PACs in 2018 over his opposition to Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, estimated to be the richest man in the world, is one of the few top donors who gave to a group that supports both Democrats and Republicans. In 2018, he gave $10 million to With Honor Fund, a super PAC that backs military veterans of both parties.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bezos was one of 30 "guardian angels" — a single donor accounting for 40 percent or more of a major outside group's funding — OpenSecrets tracked in the 2018 cycle. Illinois shipping giant <b>Richard Uihlein </b>sponsored seven of these groups in 2018 and already makes up nearly half of the funding for conservative super PAC Club for Growth Action ahead of 2020.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tom Steyer, who like Bloomberg is self-funding his presidential bid in 2020, accounts for the bulk of funding for his liberal groups NextGen Climate Action and Need to Impeach. Steyer gave $260 million to outside groups over the last decade, topped only by the Adelsons. In backing his own environmental group, Steyer single handedly brought environmental interest giving close to the long-dominant oil & gas industry.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Steyer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Billionaire investor Tom Steyer is self-funding his 2020 presidential campaign after giving more than $260 million to liberal causes. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Just as the growth in giving to outside groups didn't benefit men and women equally, only a few select industries have taken advantage of Citizens United.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The biggest winner is the securities and investment industry, which overtook retirees as the top industry in each of the last four election cycles</b>.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> While retirees give almost all of their money to candidates and parties, <b>well-paid Wall Street executives, hedge fund managers and investors give big dollars to outside groups. The affluent industry accounts for one-fifth of all money to outside groups since the creation of super PACs.</b></span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Writing the dissent in Citizens United, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens predicted that the ruling "dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions—and the narrow interests they represent—vis-à-vis the role of political parties—and the broad coalitions they represent—in determining who will hold public office."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It turned out those narrow interests aren't just corporations or unions. The biggest donors are individuals behind the most powerful and well-funded industries in the country. One person may use their wealth to push their specific interests to the forefront of electoral politics simply by giving millions of dollars.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Most industries, particularly those that aren't home to many wealthy individuals, barely give any money to outside groups. The education industry gave just 5 percent of its money to outside groups despite ranking as a top-10 industry. Even prolific industries like lawyers/law firms or health professionals give less than one-tenth of their campaign cash to outside groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Just as most corporations stay away from super PACs, lobbyists generally don't give money to these outside groups that air partisan attacks on lawmakers they want to sway. The influential industry has given $188 million, roughly split between Republicans and Democrats, since the creation of super PACs. But just 3 percent of their money went to outside groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hard money has also been impacted by the Citizens United precedent. In 2014's McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court's conservative majority struck down limits on how much an individual donor can give to candidates, parties and PACs in an election cycle. Those limits never applied to outside groups such as super PACs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A district court upheld the limits in 2012, arguing that donors could circumvent contribution limits to candidates, parties and PACs by giving to a number of groups that then give to the donor's preferred candidate. Something similar occurred in 2016, when Hillary Clinton's joint fundraising committee appeared to circumvent contribution limits by routing money to state parties that then funneled it back to the Democratic National Committee.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clinton</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton routed money from state parties to her presidential campaign thanks to the removal of giving limits. (Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Chief Justice Roberts rejected the idea that donors would abuse the lack of overall giving limits. He argued that donors seeking influence would rather see their money spent independently to support their preferred candidate "rather than see it diluted to a small fraction so that it can be contributed directly by someone else." In doing so, he appeared to undermine his 2010 conclusion that independent spending cannot give rise to quid pro quo corruption.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The ruling allowed megadonors to give much more to candidates and parties. In the 2012 cycle, donors could give $46,200 to federal candidates and $70,800 to PACs and parties. During the 2016 election, the first full cycle after limits were removed, donors began giving millions in hard money. The Adelsons gave $4.6 million, and Chicago billionaires James and Mary Pritzker gave nearly $3.4 million.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Donors gave a midterm record $526 million to 814 joint fundraising committees in the 2018 cycle. A committee affiliated with former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) brought in nearly $65 million and funneled millions to committees that could give to Republican House candidates. Another House GOP group, Protect the House, brought in $26 million and distributed the money among 46 committees.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">House Republicans' joint fundraising committee to take back the House in 2020 has already raised $26 million. Trump is drawing unprecedented fundraising from these committees ahead of 2020, raising hundreds of millions for his campaign and the Republican National Committee between his small-dollar committee and Trump Victory, which facilitates six-figure checks from wealthy donors. Without a presidential nominee for the party, Democrats are falling far behind in joint fundraising efforts, leading to serious money troubles for the Democratic National Committee.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Dark Money Infiltrates Elections</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Citizens United suddenly and dramatically increased the power of dark money groups — namely nonprofit groups that are not required to disclose their donors — to directly influence federal elections. These secretive groups spent $963 million on elections over the last decade without informing voters who paid for their ads.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Three years before Citizens United, the Supreme Court's conservatives ruled in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. that nonprofit groups could use corporate funds to run ads just before an election as long as they didn't expressly advocate for or against a candidate's election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If not for Citizens United, the 2007 decision might have been held up as the reason for an explosion of dark money. Nonprofit groups were already starting to take advantage of Wisconsin Right to Life before the Supreme Court upended the campaign finance system three years later. During the 2008 presidential election cycle, nondisclosing entities spent $102 million on outside spending meant to influence crucial races. In the four election cycles prior, they spent a combined $26 million.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Citizens United ruling took things further by allowing nonprofits to spend corporate treasury funds on ads that expressly advocate for or against a candidate's election. These anonymously funded groups swiftly put their new powers to use. Dark money groups launched $139 million in FEC-reported outside spending during the 2010 midterms, then shelled out a record $313 million during the 2012 election cycle.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Conservative groups, such as Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity, dominated the dark money game, accounting for 86 percent of outside spending from these groups.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">All but one of the Supreme Court justices, associate justice Clarence Thomas, rejected Citizens United's request to strike down campaign finance rules that require disclosure of donors. But the majority did not acknowledge in their opinion that corporations, including nonprofit corporations, are inherently opaque in their structure.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Regulated by the Internal Revenue Service, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit may spend unlimited sums on political activities without ever disclosing donors so long as its primary purpose is "social welfare." The IRS has not clearly defined what a primary purpose is or issued rules on how to calculate it, but the generally accepted test is that less than half of a 501(c)(4) nonprofit's activities may be political. In order to stay under the 50 percent threshold, some dark money groups funnel anonymous cash to each other in complex networks.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Irs</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The IRS has not attempted to clamp down on politically active nonprofits in recent years. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that disclosed information about independent spenders "enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages." He said advances in technology would make disclosure faster and more effective.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters," Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was slowly eroded, it appeared to usher in a short-lived era of transparency. Roughly 97 percent of outside spending in the 2004 presidential election cycle came from groups that disclosed their donors, followed by 87 percent in 2006.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">That number dropped to 65 percent in 2008 following FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., then further to 48 percent in 2010 and 40 percent in 2012 before recovering in recent years.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The decade after Citizens United ushered in the rise of "grey money" groups that disclose only some of their donors</b>. Partially-disclosing political groups were practically nonexistent before 2010 and have increased most cycles since. Nonprofits and secretive shell companies began to funnel money to super PACs. Although super PACs are required to disclose their donors, that information doesn't go beyond the name and address of a nonprofit or company, in many cases leaving the true source of money hidden.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Limited liability companies gave $82 million to outside groups such as super PACs between the 2012 and 2018 cycles, including a record $35 million in 2016. Some of those contributions were made by shell companies created to mask the original source of money.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dark money groups funneled $176 million to super PACs and hybrid PACs during the 2018 midterms. While dark money spending fell, the percentage of grey money in outside spending hit a record high in 2018, totaling more than $391 million and accounting for more than a third of spending by all non-party outside groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Grey and dark money spending by groups that don't fully disclose donors has exceeded $2 billion since Citizens United. That only includes spending that is reported to the FEC, such as independent expenditures and electioneering communications. It doesn't include millions of dollars spent on issue ads meant to boost or weaken candidates before election season draws near.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Following the bombardment of ads from nondisclosing groups, it became apparent, even to Kennedy, that the modern campaign finance system was not providing transparency to voters. In 2015, Kennedy lambasted the FEC and other agencies for not doing more to require politically active groups to disclose their donors. The author of the Citizens United ruling said the modern-age disclosure system he championed is "not working the way it should."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kennedy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged his decision was not followed by proper disclosure. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The FEC has proved powerless in the battle against dark money.</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> The bitterly divided commission voted several times on new regulations to compel the disclosure of donors to nonprofit groups making independent expenditures but Republican commissioners rejected them. The commission has consistently dismissed complaints against political nonprofits, including those that appear to be organized specifically for the purpose of making independent expenditures. That includes a complaint against Carolina Rising, a pop-up group that spent nearly all of its $4.9 million budget to help elect Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) in 2014.</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In August 2018, a U.S. District Court judge found that the FEC improperly allowed nonprofits to skirt disclosure requirements. In response, the FEC released guidance on the subject, stating that any group that spends at least $250 on independent expenditures must report every donor who gave at least $200 for "political purposes" in the calendar year.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Following the court decision and guidance, 17 groups were informed they would have to disclose their donors. Just four groups provided a list of donors for the 2018 election cycle — and those lists only included names of other dark money groups or affiliated nonprofits. Without a clear definition of what constitutes a contribution for a political purpose, many groups claimed they did not receive contributions specifically meant to be used for political purposes. Even the top dark money spender of the election cycle, the Senate Democratic leadership-linked Majority Forward, told the FEC it did not receive any contributions for political purposes and refused to disclose its donors despite spending more than $45 million to boost Democrats.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Congress has also failed to pass dark money legislation. </b>After Citizens United, Democrats attempted to compel transparency with the DISCLOSE Act, which made its so any group, including corporations, political nonprofits, trade associations and unions that spent $10,000 or more on FEC-reported spending must disclose the source of all contributions of $10,000 or more that election cycle. Republicans aggressively filibustered the bill, successfully preventing it from garnering 60 votes in the Senate. They argued it unfairly benefitted unions — which receive most of their funding from relatively small member dues — over corporations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As discussed earlier in the report, corporate contributions have mostly benefited Republicans while unions mostly back Democrats. Most major corporations avoid giving to super PACs, where their disclosed contributions to these hyper-partisan groups could spark outrage among potential customers or clients. But pieces of evidence show that corporations funnel money into electoral politics through dark money groups instead to avoid scrutiny.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Americans for Job Security, a trade association that spent millions opposing President Barack Obama and other Democrats, was forced to reveal its donors last year following a lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The legal win, the first of its kind in the post-Citizens United era, exposed numerous contributions from major corporations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Well-known companies such as Quicken Loans and Bass Pro Shops directly gave to the group, according to the disclosure. Companies that received massive sums from government contracts, such as Hensel Phelps Construction and B/E Aerospace, also funneled money to Americans for Job Security. Government contractors are barred from making contributions to federal candidates and PACs, and the FEC has fined contractors for funding super PACs. Companies can avoid this ban by funding politically active nonprofits and trade associations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In most cases, the only way to know how much money a major company gives to dark money groups is if it voluntarily discloses its political contributions. Shareholders of public companies are increasingly pushing for this transparency. According to the Center for Political Accountability, 49 percent of companies on the S&P 500 don't disclose their contributions to 527 groups — information that is already made public by the IRS anyway. Far more companies, 64 percent, do not disclose their contributions to 501(c)(4)s, leaving hundreds of powerful companies unaccounted for.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nyse</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hundreds of powerful S&P 500 companies do not disclose their contributions to dark money nonprofits. (Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images)]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Some of the biggest dark money players over the last decade are funded by major corporations. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In some cases, they take cash from foreign companies, raising the question of whether the influx of dark money was at least partially backed by foreign money. Foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations are barred from spending in U.S. elections.</span></b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, receives member dues from corporations it represents, including foreign-based companies. The conservative group says it does not use foreign money to fund election-related messages. <b>The Chamber has spent $143 million on elections since the 2010 cycle, making it the top dark money spender post-Citizens United.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>The National Rifle Association's 501(c)(4) arm, which has spent $59 million boosting Republicans since Citizens United, has taken big checks from affiliates of foreign-owned gun manufacturers such as Germany's SIG Sauer and Italy's Beretta. The American Chemistry Council, another politically active trade association, has several foreign companies among its members.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Even contributions from legally formed companies may not be what they seem. CEO Andy Khawaja was indicted in December 2019 for allegedly routing $3.5 million to political committees in the form of personal donations and contributions from his payment processing company, Allied Wallet, as a straw donor for United Arab Emirates adviser George Nader.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Shell companies also provide opportunities for foreign intervention</b>. Jho Low, a Malaysian financier accused of stealing billions from his home country, allegedly funneled more than $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC through a shell company in 2012. Low was indicted in 2019 on an array of charges including campaign finance violations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is impossible to say how much foreign money goes to politically active nonprofits and trade associations, as these groups do not disclose information about their funding sources. Reported contributions from shell companies with little paper trail or public image leave voters with useless information.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The jumbled mismatch of campaign finance laws in the post-Citizens United era allows for unlimited sums of money to flow into U.S. elections, some disclosed and some not. The FEC and Congress have not closed the loopholes created by the ruling that enable dark money to flood the airwaves. Amid deep partisan divisions in Congress and a paralyzed FEC that can't even conduct meetings without action from the president, it appears highly unlikely that will change before the 2020 election or beyond.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">OpenSecrets.org is the nation's premier website tracking the influence of money on U.S. politics, and how that money affects policy and citizens' lives.</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Fifth Anniversary of Citizens United, Eshoo Co-Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Rid Politics of Dark MoneyThe Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon have cast a dark shadow over our democracy by bringing us dangerously closer to an electoral system where the voices of average Americans are easily drowned out by special interests, shadowy front groups, and a handful of billionaires," said Eshoo. "At a time when Americans of every political persuasion want big money out of our elections, the Democracy for All Amendment will restore their authority to pass laws protecting the integrity of our electoral process. By reversing Citizens United and related cases, this amendment will advance the basic principle of "one voice-one vote' that is integral to our democracy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Statement</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By: Anna Eshoo </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Date: Jan. 22, 2015 </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Location: Washington, DC </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Keyword Search : Corporation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yesterday, on the five-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.) co-introduced the Democracy for All Amendment. This proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution would reverse highly controversial Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, which have given corporations and America's wealthiest donors a right to buy unlimited influence in our nation's elections. Eshoo joined original co-sponsors of the bill Reps. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Donna F. Edwards (D-Md.), and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon have cast a dark shadow over our democracy by bringing us dangerously closer to an electoral system where the voices of average Americans are easily drowned out by special interests, shadowy front groups, and a handful of billionaires," said Eshoo. "At a time when Americans of every political persuasion want big money out of our elections, the Democracy for All Amendment will restore their authority to pass laws protecting the integrity of our electoral process. By reversing Citizens United and related cases, this amendment will advance the basic principle of "one voice-one vote' that is integral to our democracy."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CU dark money to state (supreme ct) judge elections</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">andy kroll</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/judicial-elections-citizens-united-karl-rove/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">evil triple whammy: CU, CFG and lamar sci suppress</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05122017/lamar-smith-congress-climate-change-fossil-fuel-industry-house-science-committee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no link pix grafic</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FREDERICKSBURG, Texas—It's midway through fall, and cold has yet to settle over the Eckhardt family orchard. So, Diane Eckhardt waits with rising apprehension.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cold is the switch that triggers the growing sequence that by summer has limbs sagging with ripe, juicy peaches. The reliable chill season in Texas Hill Country allowed Eckhardt's grandfather, Otto, to start the family business here in the 1930s.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But last year, with temperatures the warmest since 1939, Eckhardt's trees produced just 10 percent of their usual yield. And the year before, warm weather reduced production between 60 and 70 percent. Now, Eckhardt worries not only about the next crop, but about the future of a business she hopes will be passed on to her niece and nephews.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"We know climate change is happening," she said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But while the Eckhardts face that certainty, their congressman sows uncertainty, casting doubt on the consensus science that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of rising global temperatures, and opposing government action to curb them.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sixteen-term Republican Lamar Smith has used his power as chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee for the past five years to do battle on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. Embracing the arguments of a small group of climate contrarians, Smith acknowledges that warming is happening but says more research is needed to determine the amount and causes, and whether it does more good than harm.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Smith's critics say he misrepresents facts, cleverly casts doubt on legitimate studies by claiming they are based on "secret data" and uses his subpoena power to help industry battle state and federal regulators and environmental groups. The result is that a panel with vast jurisdiction over all government non-military science, research and development has become an instrument of attack on mainstream climate science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Anyone stating what the climate will be in 500 years or even at the end of the century is not credible," Smith said at a hearing he chaired in March. "In the field of climate science, there is legitimate concern that scientists are biased in favor of reaching predetermined conclusions. This invariably leads to alarmist findings that are wrongly reported as facts."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Things weren't always this way. Under both Democratic and moderate Republican leadership, the science committee since the late 1970s had educated lawmakers and the public about the threats posed by rising temperatures caused by human activity and the need for decisive action.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But in a case study of the power of fossil fuel interests to shape government policy, the industry's money and alliances with conservative think tanks and advocacy groups transformed the committee's membership and supported the rise of Smith, son of an old oil and ranching family in South Texas. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Choke Hold: House Science</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Today, "we're in total denial," says the highest-ranking Democrat on the panel, fellow Texan Eddie Bernice Johnson. Instead of looking at the evidence and making policy recommendations on climate—as once happened—the committee is "pretending to be oblivious."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"When you look at the [campaign] contribution list, it becomes very clear" that the forces that oppose regulation are calling the shots, she said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Smith, 70, has announced he will retire after his term as chairman ends next year. But many believe his legacy will be lasting. The committee under Smith has "contributed to the sort of diminishment of science in public policy," said Andrew Rosenberg, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization that has been one of Smith's targets. "It has reinforced the view that everything must be partisan, and you've got to choose sides. It sends a message that science is partisan, too."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Science Committee Transformed</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The House Science Committee held Congress' first hearings on climate science in 1976, and it resulted in passage of bipartisan legislation to establish a National Climate Program Office. Five years later, Al Gore, then a congressman and committee member, co-chaired another set of hearings on "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: The Greenhouse Effect." </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With fidelity to its nonpartisan tradition, the committee championed scientists who found themselves under fire during President George W. Bush's administration. The Republican chairman at the time, Sherwood Boehlert of New York, faced off against Bush officials and GOP colleagues on Capitol Hill, armed, he says now, with what he learned about global warming during 24 years on the committee. "I [witnessed] a parade of some of the most distinguished scientists...from around the world testify that climate change is for real, it has serious and negative consequences, and we damn well better do something about it," Boehlert said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But by 2013, Republican moderates like Boehlert who accepted climate science were eliminated. Redistricting by both parties—to make red districts redder and blue districts bluer—was partly to blame. But much of the change was due to a systematic effort by conservatives, with significant help from fossil fuel interests that were seeking to stave off policies that might cut into their profits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Senate Science Committee's Disappearing Center</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Helping the effort was the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which opened the door to unlimited political spending. The decision empowered hugely wealthy donors like the oil billionaire Koch brothers seeking to shape politics in America. Between 2010 and 2012 alone, individuals and companies in the fossil fuel industry spent an unprecedented $90.5 million to elect friendly Republicans, an increase of 66 percent over the previous two election cycles (compared with $15.7 million they gave to Democrats), according to Center for Responsive Politics data.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sherwood Boehlert</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the end, nearly a third of the Republicans who sat on the committee in 2006—seven of 24, including Boehlert—were defeated or retired over the next six years in the wake of primary challenges from the right.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The conservative advocacy group, the Club for Growth, financed many of the challenges. The group has a broad low-tax, less-government agenda, but its victims saw the hand of fossil fuel interests at work.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"My most enduring heresy was saying that climate change was real," said Bob Inglis of South Carolina, who became convinced of climate reality on a science committee trip to Antarctica. He lost in 2010 to Rep. Trey Gowdy, who was endorsed by the Club for Growth. "It had appeared that I had crossed to the other side and had become unfaithful to the tribe."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, a science committee Republican defeated in the 2008 primary, believed the conservative activists had a deeper objection than his stand on climate issues. "The foundation upon which their enterprise was built was to select members of Congress that could be told what to do," Gilchrest said. "They wanted a puppet."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Club for Growth, which spent between $6 million and $22 million each election cycle between 2004 and 2016, did not have to disclose its donors until it established a Super PAC in 2010. But at least $3 million came into the club from the labyrinth Koch network between 2009 and 2015, according to the tax returns of their various nonprofit advocacy groups. And the club's Super PAC disclosures show that its wealthy donors include some heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry and connected to the Koch brothers, like hedge fund manager Paul Singer of Elliott Management, and Quantum Energy, a Houston private equity and venture capital firm specializing in oil and gas.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry became the biggest contributor to science committee members, according to Center for Responsive Politics data. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">House Science Committee: Follow the Money...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2/15</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mcconnell staff network</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the deciding vote to gut a century of campaign finance law, he assured the public that the unlimited corporate spending he was ushering in would “not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Because those authorized to give and spend unlimited amounts were legally required to remain independent of the politicians themselves, Kennedy reasoned, there was no cause for concern.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Just five years later, in a development that may be surprising only to Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision is reshaping how, how much and to whom money flows in Washington.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How the flood of money released by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has changed elections has been the subject of much discussion, but the decision’s role in allowing that same money to soak the legislative process has largely gone unreported. According to an extensive review of public documents held by the FEC, the U.S. Senate and the Internal Revenue Service, as well as interviews with lobbyists and policymakers, Kennedy's allegedly independent spending has become increasingly intertwined with lobbying and legislation -- the precise appearance of corruption campaign finance laws were meant to curb.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Politically active nonprofits, known as "dark money" groups for their ability to shield the identity of donors, and super PACs, which take unlimited sums of money but must disclose donors, have become dominated by lobbyists and other political operatives with close ties to leaders in Congress. Meanwhile, businesses with issues before Congress are pumping increasingly more money into the lobbyist-connected organizations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Supreme Court initially established a narrow definition of corruption in the 1970s, but Citizens United used it to blow open the gates that had been holding back corporate money. The 2010 decision came as the U.S. legislative system had evolved into a near parliamentary system of party-line voting and expansive party networks extending seamlessly from the Capitol to party headquarters to lobbying firms to outside political groups. Most top congressional legislators now have "leadership teams" -- informal but internally recognized groups of aides-turned-lobbyists who help raise funds.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To the lobbyists working in the system he helped create, Kennedy’s vision of political spending is unrecognizable. "I think Justice Kennedy's view on this was naive at best," one lobbyist told The Huffington Post, reflecting a rare bipartisan consensus. "People are going to do what's allowed under the law."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Supreme Court majority’s casual dismissal of the possibility that the Citizens United ruling could lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption was necessary from a judicial perspective. Citizens United and a subsequent lower court ruling essentially hold that the First Amendment prevents the government from restricting political spending independent of the candidates and parties. Yet the courts had long recognized Congress’ authority to regulate the financing of campaigns and the lobbying process in order to maintain the citizens’ trust in a democratic government. Where the choice had been between the sanctity of elections on the one hand and an unfettered interpretation of the First Amendment on the other, the courts chose to protect elections -- because without a trusted government, there is no First Amendment to speak of.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kennedy and the other four justices, therefore, had to insist that independent political spending could not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption -- no threat of corruption meant no congressional authority to regulate that spending.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is difficult, however, to look closely at the way laws are being made today without acknowledging at least an appearance of corruption. Congressional aides to whom HuffPost spoke all said that their own members of Congress were certainly not influenced in an untoward way by the corporate funds pumped into efforts to re-elect them, but that it was easy to see why the public might assume that to be the case. Five years later, the judicial logic of Citizens United has unraveled.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Political advisers closely associated with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) serve as both operatives on their behalf and lobbyists for corporate clients with business before Congress. The clients are encouraged to give generously to super PACs associated with the respective lawmakers, according to lobbyists familiar with the widespread strategy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trevor Potter, one of the top election lawyers in the country whose clients include Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and comedian Stephen Colbert, warns that this arrangement creates exactly the appearance of corruption that courts have used to justify campaign finance limits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It does make a significant difference to have lobbyists involved because then you have the very lobbyists who seek official action from the members being the conduits to the money,” Potter said. “It makes them valuable to their clients because they have a good relationship with the member, and they have a tight relationship with the member because they have access to the money from their clients.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">They're making use of the opportunity. A connected super PAC and nonprofit manned by lobbyists tied to Boehner have collectively received millions from interests in the insurance, drug, energy and other industries. Big-money groups associated with McConnell have been funded by coal companies, insurers and hospitals. Mining and gambling businesses have given directly to the super PAC associated with Reid, which is staffed by two Reid confidantes, one of whom advises the lobby shop that represents those companies while she also prepares to run the senator's 2016 re-election bid. All these companies have hired lobbyists who are connected to those same lawmakers as well as to the big-money groups and who are also working on issues over which Congress has much sway. The groups they fund have spent big to put and keep Boehner, McConnell and Reid in the driver’s seat.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tony Podesta, a Democratic super lobbyist with the Podesta Group, told HuffPost that he has encouraged his corporate clients to give to super PACs and dark money nonprofits. “It’s unfortunate that we have the decision Citizens United, but as long as that’s the law of the land, then Democrats and Republicans are both active in these kinds of endeavors,” he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Speaker John Boehner has close ties to the American Action Network, a dark money nonprofit, and the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC. These groups raise funds from clients of lobbyists looking to increase their own influence.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the House of Representatives, Speaker Boehner maintains a tight network of former aides who have decamped to K Street. Through these aides, he is tied to a dark money nonprofit and related super PAC that have spent millions to help him become speaker and to maintain and expand his GOP majority. The House leadership's agenda regularly aligns with that of the clients of the lobbyists who give to these groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The two outside groups in the middle of Boehner’s web are the American Action Network, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that does not have to disclose its donors, and the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC operating under AAN’s umbrella.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The board of directors of AAN and Congressional Leadership Fund is lined with lobbyists and influencers including Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck strategic adviser Barry Jackson, a former chief of staff to Boehner who left his office in 2012. Brownstein’s profile of Jackson, who is not registered to lobby, focuses heavily on his congressional and executive branch connections and experience without mention of any particular policy expertise.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Also, Brownstein Hyatt employed former Boehner aide Marc Lampkin as managing director of its Washington lobbying office. His firm bio declares him to be a proud member of “Team Boehner," and he is widely seen as one of the speaker's closest advisers. He is also a lobbyist for a number of interests that contribute to super PACs and nonprofits that help Republicans in elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Apollo Education Group, which owns and operates the for-profit University of Phoenix, has donated $50,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund since 2012 while employing Lampkin to lobby on behalf of such schools. Boehner and his House Republicans have long been staunch supporters of for-profit universities. In recent years, they have fought back against federal regulations to rein in that industry, which relies hugely on its students receiving federal grants and taxpayer-backed loans while it fails to graduate those same students.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The CEO of pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories, another Lampkin client, gave $50,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund in 2012. Boehner recently inaugurated a new Abbott factory in his congressional district while opposing changes to tax laws that allowed Abbott to purchase an overseas competitor in 2014 and turn itself into a multinational corporation to avoid U.S. tax payments (the tactic, known as an inversion, has come under increasing scrutiny).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lampkin and another former Boehner aide, Sam Geduldig, have both registered to lobby for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, a trade group for large insurance companies that has given $185,000 to outside groups supporting Republicans since 2012. PCI’s contributions include $25,000 each to the Congressional Leadership Fund and AAN.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The insurers group also pumped funds into the dark money network run by Steven Law, a member of McConnell’s inner circle and a former general counsel at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. PCI gave $75,000 to Crossroads GPS and $25,000 to the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition. Both groups are run by Law and spent millions to re-elect McConnell in 2014. PCI also put money into super PACs supporting two Republicans first elected to the Senate this past November: Joni Ernst of Iowa and David Perdue of Georgia. Their seats were among the handful McConnell needed his party to win in order for him to take the Senate’s top spot.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"PCI participates in the political process like many others and supports pro business and pro property & casualty organizations,” Marguerite Tortorello, PCI's senior vice president for public affairs, said in a statement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Shortly after the 2014 election, the two top priorities of the insurers group and the broader insurance industry were rolled into one: A provision to roll back capital standards placed on insurance companies by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law was attached to the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Although that bill stalled last year, the new Congress in January passed a terrorism insurance reauthorization with the capital standards rollback attached -- with bipartisan support. An amendment from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to strip the rollback measure failed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The inability to pass legislation was a hallmark of the last Congress. But one area where lawmakers forced swift action wound up being profitable for the super PACs and nonprofits that support them.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In April 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration announced that it would be furloughing air traffic controllers throughout the year due to the automatic budget cuts brought about by sequestration. This would have led to flight delays, lost profits for the airline industry and lost wages for controllers and pilots. Within a week of the announcement, Congress passed legislation to ease the sequester cuts at the FAA.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lobbying players who pushed Congress to act on the FAA also sent contributions to various outside groups connected to congressional GOP leaders. Airlines for America, the industry’s main trade group, gave $150,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund, $35,000 to the pro-McConnell super PAC Kentuckians for Strong Leadership and $40,000 to Defending Main Street SuperPAC, a group backing moderate Republicans in fights with tea party candidates.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“You can’t have good policy without good candidates and legislation, which is why it’s important to the 2 million people we fly every day and the nearly 600,000 people we employ that we be involved,” Airlines for America spokesman Vaughn Jennings said in a statement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The lobby group is headed by Nick Calio, a veteran of both Bush administrations, who expressed an interest in increasing the airline industry’s political giving upon taking the helm in 2010.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“You’ve got to be part of the political process, and contributions and political support are part of the political process,” Calio told Politico in 2010. “When you have people who consistently support you on policy issues, they expect you to be part of their political life support system. It’s just that simple.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The National Air Traffic Controllers Association, a labor union, also gave $50,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund and $150,000 to Defending Main Street after Congress ended the sequester-related furloughs. Those contributions were out of the ordinary for the union, which had been a major supporter of Democrats alone. It has given $3.9 million to super PACs backing Democrats.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Calio is deeply enmeshed in the political party machinery, and his group rewards congressional action by making huge contributions to outside groups that directly support lawmakers. What he does not have is a direct relationship with an outside spending group. Other major lobbyists, including heads of trade associations, do.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Take Mike Duncan, who served as chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2007 to 2009. Following the Citizens United decision, he joined with Karl Rove and other GOP operatives to form the super PAC American Crossroads and the nonprofit Crossroads GPS. He still sits on the board of American Crossroads.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Duncan is not just a party operative. In 2012, he became head of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a major Washington lobbying arm of the coal and railroad industry. The coalition was in the midst of a massive advertising and pressure campaign in Washington as the Obama administration pushed for new regulations on coal-fired power plants to reduce their pollution.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To further increase its GOP connection, the coal coalition signed up Boehner’s former aide Lampkin to lobby in 2013.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Coal industry companies and executives on the board of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity have contributed more than $10 million to Republican outside groups. Joe Craft and his company Alliance Resource Partners have provided most of this money with contributions totaling nearly $9.4 million. Alpha Natural Resources, Consol Energy and Murray Energy have also chipped in. Additionally, Matthew Rose, the CEO of Burlington North Santa Fe and a member of the coal coalition’s board, gave $25,000 to the super PAC supporting McConnell in 2014. (This is all aside from the hundreds of millions in political spending by the Koch brothers, fossil fuel magnates.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Republicans have, in turn, become increasingly vocal in their support for the coal industry and their opposition to any rule, regulation or idea -- including belief in climate change driven by human action -- that could harm the industry.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A spokeswoman for the coal coalition said that Duncan separates his work at American Crossroads from that at the lobbying group and does not solicit the latter’s members to give to the former.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The pro-Boehner AAN, the nonprofit parent of the Congressional Leadership Fund, is a hotbed of lobbyist activity. The board currently boasts four registered lobbyists -- former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), former Reps. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) and Vin Weber (R-Minn.), and former RNC official Maria Cino -- and two other employees of lobbying firms -- former Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno and former Boehner aide Barry Jackson.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Past AAN board members include major GOP fundraiser and previously registered lobbyist C. Boyden Gray and former Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), who is the head of the Credit Union National Association.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We’re proud to have a distinguished board from business executives to policy leaders to former elected officials -- they’ve been successful in all walks of life and they’re critical to our success,” Dan Conston, spokesman for both AAN and the Congressional Leadership Fund, said in an email. “Do they fundraise for us? Of course. Do they uphold their fiduciary responsibility to us as board members? Of course.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Crossroads GPS, like its sister super PAC, also maintains connections to K Street through its board. Crossroads board member Sally Vastola, a former staffer for Rep. Reynolds, decamped with her old boss to the law and lobbying firm of Nixon Peabody, where she lobbies for pharmaceutical companies and the student loan giant Sallie Mae.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Both American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS have separate and independent boards whose members do not fundraise for either organization and have a range of work outside their board positions," said Paul Lindsay, communications director for the Crossroads duo.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lobbyists straddling the party operative-influence peddling line have themselves given more than $1 million to super PACs and nonprofits since the Citizens United decision.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The top lobbyist donor to these groups is Boyden Gray, a top-shelf GOP fundraiser and former AAN board member, whose contributions total $390,000. Gray made contributions to such super PACs as American Crossroads, Freedom PAC and Kentuckians for Strong Leadership. According to lobbyist contribution disclosures, he also gave to dark money groups: $50,000 to Crossroads GPS and $15,000 to Wisconsin Club for Growth as it worked incredibly closely with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) to help him survive a recall election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The vast majority of our donors give on the basis of broad philosophical conviction," said Crossroads' Lindsay. "The fact that some have various policy interests should come as no surprise, but those interests have no effect on our activities."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The full record of lobbyists and their clients funding outside groups connected to party leadership is almost certainly obscured by the fact that many of these groups are not required to disclose their donors. Dark money nonprofits like AAN, Crossroads GPS and the Democratic Party group Patriot Majority USA spend huge sums on elections and on attack ads masquerading as issue advocacy. Few of their donors have materialized, but what little has leaked indicates that contributions from clients of party-linked lobbyists and trade associations actively lobbying Congress are common.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">AAN has sucked in millions from Washington-based corporate trade groups and corporations with major interests in Congress. Those donations include $6 million from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and $3.3 million from pharmaceutical giant Aetna. The Alliance for Quality Home Nursing Care chipped in $250,000. Additional funds came from America’s Natural Gas Alliance, the Motion Picture Association of America and the top lobbyist for Health Care Service Corporation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Alliance for Quality Home Nursing Care and its affiliated group, the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare, have given $2.9 million to outside groups as part of their lobbying campaign to restore Medicare reimbursements for home and hospice care that were cut by the Affordable Care Act. The two groups have hired top lobbyists to help direct their efforts, including Democrat Tony Podesta and Republican Haley Barbour.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Barbour, a former two-term governor of Mississippi and a onetime RNC chairman, is the personification of this cross-pollinating age. He is a powerhouse lobbyist running the BGR Group who is also an adviser to political campaigns and a past fundraiser for American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. One client, the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare, gave $500,000 to Crossroads GPS in 2012.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2014, Barbour joined hands with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to beat back a tea party primary challenge to Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). Cochran had attracted the ire of tea party activists for his support of immigration reform and his long history of earmarking funds to build projects in his impoverished state. To save the six-term senator’s seat, Barbour helped launch the super PAC Mississippi Conservatives with the backing of the chamber and Republican Senate leadership. He chipped in $35,000 of his own money, and Crest Investment Company, one of his clients, sent an additional $50,000. The chamber gave $100,000 to the super PAC and directly spent another $1.2 million to help re-elect Cochran.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cochran’s eventual victory in a run-off election was a triumphant moment for Barbour, the chamber and Republican leadership. They had beaten back a potential stumbling block to capturing the Senate majority.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The chamber didn’t just support an establishment Republican in Mississippi last year. The larger anti-tea party campaign was chiefly its work. The chamber ran hard against tea party candidates in Kentucky and North Carolina while scaring off potential challengers in West Virginia before they could materialize. In Iowa and Colorado, it found common ground on candidates with national tea party groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Of course, beyond being a funder of election ads, the Chamber of Commerce is also the nation’s largest business lobby, generously funded by corporations across America. It employs dozens of Washington lobbyists, including top former staffers for McConnell. And it does not shy away from the implication that its campaign spending is part of its lobbying operation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Our deal is to have a political program so that there is a hammer, and there is a consequence, and there is leverage and it's aggressive," Rob Engstrom, the chamber’s national political director, told CNN in 2014.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Once Republicans won the majority in the Senate, they immediately talked up the chamber’s priorities, from the Keystone XL pipeline to tax reform and pro-corporate trade policies. Newly elected Republican senators backed by the chamber announced their support for immigration reform, which the chamber strongly favors, and increased transportation and infrastructure spending, a major chamber wish opposed by the GOP’s tea party wing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As noted, a former general counsel for the Chamber of Commerce and McConnell insider, Law, now runs American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. For his own re-election, the new Senate majority leader is tightly bound to the Crossroads duo and two state groups, Kentuckians for Strong Leadership and Kentucky Opportunity Coalition. Former McConnell aide Scott Jennings operates as the public face of the latter two organizations, which are also headed by Law.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Soon after the 2014 victory, McConnell and Law announced the creation of yet another super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, which will raise funds to maintain the new GOP majority. The formation of the group echoes the big-money strategy used by now-Minority Leader Reid to keep Senate Democrats in power for the previous four years.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lobbyists and their clients have poured money into a super PAC and nonprofit run by former aides of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid as they seek legislative action from his office. (Photo: Benjamin Lowy/Getty Images)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed, Democrats have been tapping the post-Citizens United nexus of super PACs, former leadership aides and lobbying groups, too. Reid’s network is well-connected.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rebecca Lambe, the adviser most closely associated with Reid’s re-election in 2010 and his coming bid in 2016, is employed by the lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates -- as is former senior Reid aide, Kai Anderson. Lambe began work at Cassidy in early 2011. She is also the treasurer of Senate Majority PAC, the super PAC aimed at electing Senate Democrats. The latter group was founded in 2011 by Lambe and Susan McCue, Reid’s former chief of staff and longtime confidante. McCue, who is president of Senate Majority PAC, is also connected to Patriot Majority USA, a dark money group with a similar aim.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since the Citizens United decision in January 2010, lobbyists at and clients of Cassidy & Associates have given $675,000 to Senate Majority PAC and affiliated groups. Another $1.66 million has come from those who attended super PAC strategy sessions hosted by Lambe, including lobbyists and clients of other lobbyists, some of whom are other former Reid aides.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lambe’s connection to Reid is an asset to Cassidy, and the firm makes no bones about it. Her Cassidy website bio is rich with details about her ongoing connections to Reid, and her relationship with the top Senate Democrat has been a selling point in meetings with prospective clients. At one pitch meeting in May 2013, for instance, Lambe was described as both a senior Cassidy staffer and Reid’s top political strategist, according to a source at the meeting.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It’s common for lobbyists to reference their ties to powerful politicians earned through past service, but ongoing service is unusual. A second source in the room recalled Lambe being mentioned as a Cassidy staffer who would be available to the prospective client, but couldn’t recall how she was specifically identified with regard to Reid. “Of course, her reputation precedes her,” the second source said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2012, her company bio (accessed through the Internet Archive) said, “Lambe is one of the nation’s top political strategists. … Building on the highly successful model in Nevada, Lambe recently led the effort to create Majority PAC [now Senate Majority PAC], an unprecedented, independent effort to protect the Democratic Majority in the U.S. Senate in 2012. She currently serves as a Senior Advisor and Strategist to the newly formed SuperPAC.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tom Alexander, a spokesman for Cassidy, said that “there is nothing unusual about promoting the background and experience of your team. Rebecca does not lobby for us; rather, we periodically seek her counsel as we develop effective strategies for our clients.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lambe has been a liaison to K Street Democrats on Senate Majority PAC’s plans and fundraising needs. She led a presentation in June 2013 about the super PAC before some of the top Democratic lobbyists and lawmakers in Washington. Attendees included Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and lobbyists from firms whose clients gave to the super PAC as well as to Patriot Majority USA.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“She’s a very smart political operative, and I would support anything that she does,” Podesta, another attendee, said of Lambe. That event, he said, was intended “to encourage [the lobbyists] to contribute and to encourage them to encourage others to contribute.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lambe is also closely involved with what’s known as the Clean Energy Project. McCue, the Senate Majority PAC co-founder, sits on the project's board, and Cassidy & Associates is a top sponsor. Lambe herself helps organize its annual National Clean Energy Summit, held in Las Vegas.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The summit in his home state serves as a venue for Reid to showcase the alternative energy industry in Nevada and provides space for energy and vehicle companies to promote their products. One of the repeat sponsors of the summit is Cassidy client and casino operator MGM Resorts International, which is also a heavy donor to Senate Majority PAC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Cassidy firm and its clients generally have been an oft-tapped resource for Reid and Senate Majority PAC. In 2012, Gerald Cassidy, the firm’s founder, gave $50,000 to the super PAC. (Cassidy, who is officially retired from the firm, is known as the father of the earmark.) Michael Kowalski, then CEO of Cassidy client Tiffany & Co., gave $125,000 in the 2012 elections and another $100,000 in 2014. In 2010, MGM Resorts gave $300,000 to Patriot Majority, then a super PAC, supporting Reid’s re-election. Newmont Mining Corporation put $100,000 into Senate Majority PAC in 2012 and hired Cassidy the next year.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Alexander, spokesman for Cassidy & Associates, said the firm does not comment on contributions made or solicited by its employees and would not say whether the firm asked clients to give to super PACs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The $225,000 contributed by Kowalski came as Tiffany & Co. was engaged in a lobbying campaign, alongside a coalition of environmental and fiscal watchdog groups, to update a key federal mining law from 1872. The company employed former Reid aide Anderson to lobby on its behalf.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in 2006, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and other congressmen pushed a bill to require mining companies operating on public lands to pay royalties to the government and to abide by stricter environmental regulations. Rahall told USA Today in 2007 that everyone in the House would be for reform, but that Reid, then the Senate majority leader, posed an obstacle.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Well, obviously, the man in control over there is the gentleman from the largest gold-producing state,” Rahall said. Nevada is one of the world’s top producers of gold, and Reid, whose father was a gold miner, is an ardent supporter of and regular opponent of new regulation on the industry.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A mining reform bill passed the House in 2008 but went nowhere in the Senate, where Reid opposed the level of royalties, among other provisions. No such bill has passed either chamber since. Reid never stated outright that he was against the mining reform, though he said it must be crafted appropriately to satisfy the industry and protect mining jobs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The continued debate has helped elicit further contributions from both the mining industry and consumer-facing companies like Tiffany, which are hoping to avoid customer backlash over ties between their products and polluting mines. Environmental groups have already launched campaigns targeting the sale of jewelry using materials from mines with poor pollution records.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tiffany’s reform stance, in particular, stems from its past failure to get in front of consumer fury over the sale of “blood diamonds” -- diamonds sourced from war-torn African countries -- in the 2000s. CEO Kowalski told the Las Vegas Sun in 2007 that his company’s involvement in the issue “has never been ulterior or anything more than corporate self-interest.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Tiffany became more involved in the issue, Kowalski’s donations increased. Prior to 2007, he had made few contributions. But since 2008 he has given more than $160,000 to Democratic Party candidates and party committees, including $7,200 to Reid’s 2010 campaign. This was on top of the $225,000 to Senate Majority PAC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tiffany has been unable to secure a legislative win despite its heavy giving. Sometimes lobbyists squeeze corporations for money knowing their goal will remain elusive.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Anderson, the former Reid aide-turned-Cassidy staffer, also represents Newmont Mining, one of the top American gold mining companies operating in Nevada, but that lobbying has a different focus: federal efforts to preserve the greater sage grouse. The company fears that protections for the imperiled bird under the Endangered Species Act could interfere with its mining operations. The Fish and Wildlife Service is supposed to make a decision on whether to list the bird by September 2015.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cassidy was hired in July 2013, as the Bureau of Land Management was evaluating threats to sage grouse habitat in Nevada. The BLM analysis looked like it might jeopardize a new gold mine that Newmont had proposed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reid worked with Nevada’s junior senator, Republican Dean Heller, and in December of that year they offered draft legislation that would allow the state to take the lead on protecting the greater sage grouse. Their proposal would have designated certain areas for the birds, preventing an Endangered Species Act listing and leaving other areas open to development by mining operators like Newmont. That bill never passed, but language barring the Interior Department from moving forward on the greater sage grouse was part of the Reid-supported spending package in December 2014.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Anderson is also registered to lobby for MGM Resorts, one of the largest casino operators in the world. Reid is an unabashed champion of his state’s gaming industry and, as Reid defenders note, would go to bat for it whether contributions were made or not.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Still, those contributions have been made. In 2010, MGM Resorts pumped $300,000 into the Patriot Majority super PAC to help Reid defeat Republican challenger Sharron Angle. After his re-election, Reid attempted to attach language to a must-pass tax bill to open the door to online gambling in the United States. This measure was carefully tailored to provide the very first online gambling licenses to companies like MGM and Harrah’s Entertainment (now Caesar’s Entertainment), which also gave to Patriot Majority. (Reid now opposes Internet gaming -- a switch that, some speculate, is aimed at deterring casino magnate Sheldon Adelson from spending money to defeat the senator in 2016.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reid also came to MGM Resorts’ aid when a major development project with Dubai World faced financing problems during the global economic crisis. Reid helped persuade bankers to provide funding. He has said he considers the salvaging of the project, and the 22,000 Nevada jobs connected to it, among his most significant home state achievements.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While Cassidy & Associates offers the strongest linkage between Reid’s office, Senate Majority PAC and lobbying clients seeking favors on Capitol Hill, the firm is not the only K Street denizen with ties to the super PAC. Many of the lobbyists who attended the 2013 presentation by Lambe had or would make five-figure contributions to the super PAC. In some cases, the clients of those lobbyists gave, too.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Air Line Pilots Association, a Podesta Group client, gave $100,000 to Senate Majority PAC in 2014. Another Podesta client, the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare (then known as Home Health Advocacy Coalition), gave $125,000 in 2014.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These lobbyists’ clients also gave to Patriot Majority USA, the related dark money group. According to tax returns, the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare and yet another Podesta client, the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, gave a combined $1.5 million to the nonprofit from 2011 to 2012.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I’m a supporter of both groups and urge people to support both groups,” said Podesta, who personally contributed $50,000 to Senate Majority PAC in 2012.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Before there was a Senate Majority PAC, there was another Democratic nonprofit acting as a key node in the flow of money from lobbying interests to help elect helpful politicians. Citizens for Strength & Security Action Fund, and its later iterations, provides what may be the clearest example of how outside spending groups are used by lobbyists to curry favor with leaders in Congress.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The story begins back when Congress debated and passed the Affordable Care Act. An immense legislative accomplishment for President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, the law was also the subject of a massive, still-ongoing lobbying campaign. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent tens of millions of dollars trying to defeat the reform bill, much of it provided by America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobbying association for health insurers. The chamber also spent millions more trying to defeat reform proponents in the 2010 election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The preeminent interest group spreading money around Washington on health care reform, however, was the pharmaceutical industry. Under the stewardship of former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) -- whose leap from writing the Medicare prescription drug law to lobbying on K Street led to an eponymous rules change in Congress -- Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America worked behind the scenes with the White House and then-Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to advance the legislation. PhRMA’s chief requirements: that the new law not reverse the ban on re-importing drugs and not grant authority to Medicare, Medicaid or any new entity to negotiate lower drug prices.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In return for abandoning those two longstanding Democratic Party goals, Democrats would get PhRMA’s support, which included directing millions of dollars to outside nonprofits to pay for electoral and advocacy ads. Along with other industry groups like the Federation of American Hospitals and reform proponents like Families USA, PhRMA launched Americans for Stable Quality Care in 2009. The new dark-money nonprofit raised and spent $46 million that year to fund a barrage of ads backing Obama’s health bill.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And then, two months before the law passed in March 2010, the Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United decision, allowing corporations to fund electoral efforts through nonprofits like Americans for Stable Quality Care. The group quickly changed its name to Citizens for Strength & Security Action Fund and transformed into an overtly political operation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PhRMA pumped $2.5 million into that group in 2010 to help pay for ads supporting the election of Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Their seats were vital to maintaining the Democratic majority in the Senate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The pharmaceutical lobby also put $2 million into another Democratic nonprofit called America’s Families First, which operated as a donor fund and redistributed what it raised. It gave $2.3 million to the get-out-the-vote group America Votes, $1.5 million to Democratic super PACs, $461,000 to Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund and $370,000 to Citizens for Strength & Security Action Fund, among others. All of these named groups were active in supporting Democrats in the 2010 election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Finally, PhRMA boosted Sen. Baucus, the main congressional architect of health care reform, by sending $500,000 to an obscure group called Montana Growth. In 2013, the little known group funneled $400,000 of that money over to the Stronger Montana Fund and Montana Hunters & Anglers Action, both Democratic dark-money nonprofits, to support a possible re-election campaign by Baucus.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Stronger Montana Fund put $275,000 into a pro-Baucus issue ad early in 2013, but Baucus ultimately chose not to run again. He has since been named U.S. ambassador to China by President Obama.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One big-money Democratic operative said that while both sides accept this new corporate cash, Democrats have a harder time getting it -- there are only so many PhRMA deals on the table.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Republicans have been increasingly moving their fundraising and spending away from super PACs and toward dark money groups, which allow them to conceal the source of the money.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Democratic operative guessed that at this point, Republicans may be taking in 100 corporate dollars for every one that reaches Democrats. "We don't really know -- it's at least 10-to-1." She added, "The truth is Democrats don't get much [501(c)(4)] corporate money, and that's because their interests often aren't aligned. I'd gladly have c4s shut down -- that would be a huge boon for us." </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/citizens-united-congress_n_6723540.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SJ 19 scholar testimony: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/06-03-14RaskinTestimony.pdf</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">JH: just one year after their Citizens United decision unleashed CEOs to be able to roll truckloads of their shareholders' funds into our elections (without asking those shareholders for permission or even informing them after the fact), that same five assaulted our democracy again. Their 2011 verdict in the Arizona Free Enterprise Club case increased the volume of CorporateSpeak in elections by decreasing the speech of non-rich candidates. Specifically, they rejected the will of Arizonans who had voted to provide public funds for candidates who are willing to forego all special-interest money. This system gave the political ideas of the non-wealthy a chance to be heard when up against the multimillion-dollar PR megaphones of the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, BigOil, the Walmart heirs, and other super-wealthy oligarchs. Public financing of elections was successfully widening public debate and freeing up political speech, so the five corporate supremists stepped in to kill it, absurdly declaring that such laws give an "unfair advantage" to little-guy campaigns.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Next came this year's McCutcheon opinion, in which the same five blew the lid off the limits on money that an individual can pour on candidates during any given election cycle. The limit had been $123,000--high enough that only about 600 people out of our 330 million reached that maximum in 2012. The Court's narrow majority lifted the allowable total for one person's election-year spending to a stunning $5.9 million. That empowers a handful of the richest of rich donors--even fewer than 600--to overwhelm the political voices of millions of common citizens, all in the name of free speech. Adding to this absurdity, this five-man wrecking crew blithely declares in its McCutcheon ruling that even transactions that appear to be obvious conflicts of interest are permissible (e.g., a CEO can give $25,000 to the head of a congressional committee--the same person who a week later can put a bill on the floor to benefit the CEO's corporation). Such corrupt transactions apparently "do not justify" putting restrictions on campaign contributions. Instead, the wily ones ruled that the only donor-to-donee corruption that can be regulated is outright quid pro quo bribery.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">prop 49? 7/3 On Monday, thanks to overwhelming grassroots support, the California Assembly passed the Overturn Citizens United Act by a vote of 49-22! Governor Jerry Brown now has only a few weeks to sign the bill -- which will put it on the ballot for voters to decide this November. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">yikes, CU meets local ordinances:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Early in April, coal industry executive Shaun McCutcheon won big when the Supreme Court swept away limits on how much money wealthy donors can contribute to federal political campaigns. But in St. Louis, Mo., coal interests are trying to prevent people from even voting.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This story began when ordinary citizens joined together and took a stand against both climate change and their city’s destructive practice of granting enormous tax breaks to big business while cutting funding for public services. They talked to thousands of residents who were upset that St. Louis keeps giving away tens of millions of dollars of badly needed public money to Peabody Energy (the world’s largest private-sector coal company) and the lobbyists, banks, and law firms that enable it. And after hearing over and over again that “there oughta be a law” against corporate welfare for polluters, they did what we learned in civics class: they wrote a law that would ban public financial incentives to unsustainable energy producers and their major business partners.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">They didn’t just write the law: Under the banner of Take Back St. Louis, they walked door-to-door, talking to friends, neighbors, and strangers about their idea. They collected over 22,000 signatures — more than 10 percent of all the voters in St. Louis — on a petition for a ballot initiative. The city’s elections board verified the signatures, and began preparing to print ballots.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is where you might expect to hear about a vigorous election campaign, with arguments from both sides put to the voters, a spirited debate about the future of St. Louis and our planet, and finally, the voters making their choice at the ballot box. You might even expect to hear about the coal company spending millions of dollars to fight the initiative in the days before the vote.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But you’d be wrong: There was no vote. Instead, the coal company’s lawyers rushed to court and asked a judge to block the election on the grounds that the law would unfairly discriminate against the coal company and its business partners, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The judge agreed, and cited the Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United decision for the theory that business entities “are entitled to constitutional protection as citizens.” He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the vote, and scheduled a trial for March 31.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the trial, Take Back St. Louis provided evidence about the environmental damage caused by burning coal, and the damage to the fabric of St. Louis caused by the city’s penchant for giving away public dollars to big business. The other side didn’t put any witnesses on the stand. The judge may make his final decision any day now.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not everyone will agree that this ballot initiative is the best policy, and that’s fine. The Take Back St. Louis folks think they can convince a majority of St. Louis voters, and they’re willing to take on the coal interests in a contest for votes. But first, the court has to get out of the way. Now that the judge has the evidence, he has a chance to get this right, lift his injunction, and let the vote proceed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Whether or not you think that giving tax breaks to coal companies and their business partners is a good idea, we should all agree that this is a question for voters, not judges. Because it was bad enough when coal companies could simply open their checkbooks to flood elections with unlimited spending; now they won’t even let people vote.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ron Fein is the Legal Director for Free Speech For People, an organization dedicated to challenging the misuse of corporate power and restoring republican democracy to the people.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://grist.org/business-technology/do-coal-companies-have-more-rights-than-voters/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Updating Disclosure for the New Era of Independent Spending </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">by Richard Briffault, Columbia Law School, April 16, 2012</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Author relies on data from FollowTheMoney.org and OpenSecrets.org for analyzing post-Citizens United v. FEC explosive increase in independent spending (<$17m in 2002 Congressional elections to $290m in 2010), and ensuing disclosure issues. He argues that CU played a major role in giving rise to the disclosure problem, and outlines how that decision also provides the doctrinal means for its solution.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read Now:Updating Disclosure for the New Era of Independent SpendingPDF 543 kB</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">reverse the effects of Citizens United was pretty exciting even back when it was just the seven of us -- me; fellow Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown, Mark Begich, Kay Hagan, and Tom Udall; and Democratic Congressmen Bruce Braley and Gary Peters.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conservative group Citizens United gave at least $13,500 to four of the dissidents in the third quarter of this year -- $5,000 apiece to Amash and DeSantis on Sept. 30 and $2,400 to Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) on Sept. 24 -- the day Duncan publicly cheered Cruz's quasi-filibuster attempt to stop the Senate from considering a budget bill that didn't defund the Affordable Care Act. The group also gave $1,000 to Gohmert on July 3. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">montana: The Montana Supreme Court rules 5-2 in the case of Western Tradition Partnership v. Bullock that a century-old law prohibits corporate spending in state and federal elections conducted within the state. The ruling seems to challenge the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling (see January 21, 2010). The case stems from a challenge by a “social welfare organization,” Western Tradition Partnership (WTP, which changed its name to American Tradition Partnership after the original lawsuit was filed), joined by two other corporate entities, to Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act (CPA). The law banned corporate spending in elections, after two out-of-state copper industry magnates attempted to “buy” the Montana legislature by pouring money into the 1894 state elections. The law declares that “corporations may not make… an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Montana Supreme Court finds that the CPA is needed to ensure the integrity of Montana’s elections, and to make sure that citizens and not corporations are running the state. However, the Court acknowledges that its ruling conflicts with the Citizens United decision, though it says that the Citizens United decision allows for restrictions on corporate political speech if the government can demonstrate that the restrictions are as minimal as possible to achieve a compelling governmental interest. The Montana Court rules that because of Montana’s history of corporate vote-buying and the narrow restrictions of the CPA, the law should stand. It also notes that Western Tradition Partnership argued in its original suit that disclosure laws, as opposed to outright bans, would serve the public interest and guard against corruption; however, the organization is currently involved in another lawsuit in which it argues that those same disclosure laws are unconstitutional restrictions of the freedom of speech.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> [WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP V. BULLOCK ET AL, 12/30/2011 pdf file; LOS ANGELES TIMES, 1/4/2012; REUTERS, 6/25/2012; OMB WATCH, 6/25/2012; WASHINGTON POST, 6/25/2012;OMB WATCH, 7/10/2012] </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even one of the dissenters, Justice James C. Nelson, disagrees with the Citizens United characterizations that corporations are legally people, writing: “Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” WTP’s director Donald Ferguson says after the decision that the case hinges on freedom of speech (see January 21, 2010): “The current state law says that if you own a business and you would like to use the resources of the business to speak out about how you see the law, you essentially have to ask prior permission from the state. Under the current regime, the state regulatory agencies and the newspapers basically have a monopoly on information. We’re simply trying to put more free speech in motion.” [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 1/4/2012; HUFFINGTON POST, 1/4/2012] </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Legal Scholars Anticipate Montana Ruling to be Overturned - Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center calls the Montana high court’s ruling “an antidote to the crabbed view of corruption” displayed in Citizens United. Ryan, like many others, anticipates the US Supreme Court will overturn today’s ruling. [HUFFINGTON POST, 1/4/2012] One of those others is law professor Richard Hasen, who writes: “[I]f the Court were being honest in Citizens United, it would have said something like: ‘We don’t care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption.’ But the Court didn’t say that, because it would have faced even greater criticism than it already has. So it dressed up its value judgment (no corruption ‘implied in law’) as a factual statement. The Montana Supreme Court called SCOTUS [the US Supreme Court] on this. And when SCOTUS reverses, the disingenuousness of this aspect of CU will be on full display for all.” Hasen is referring to the Court’s finding in Citizens United that independent spending in elections does not legally imply corruption. [RICK HASEN, 1/1/2012] </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Appeal to Supreme Court - Attorneys for WTP and the other corporate plaintiffs will appeal to the US Supreme Court on the grounds that Montana is bound by theCitizens United decision and that the decision applies to state as well as federal elections. Attorney James Bopp, in filing the appeal, will say: “If Montana can ban core political speech because of Montana’s unique characteristics, free speech will be seriously harmed. Speakers will be silenced because of corruption by others over a century ago.” The US Supreme Court will quickly issue a stay of that decision. [REUTERS, 6/25/2012; OMB WATCH, 6/25/2012] When the case reaches the US Supreme Court, the name of the plaintiff will change into “American Tradition Partnership,” and the Court’s documentation will reflect that change. The Court will overrule the Montana decision (see June 25, 2012). After the decision, American Tradition Partnership’s Web site will disappear, but the liberal accountability organization SourceWatch will describe the organization’s parent, the American Tradition Institute, as described in the group’s mission statement: “a public policy research and educational foundation… founded in 2009 to help lead the national discussion about environmental issues, including air and water quality and regulation, responsible land use, natural resource management, energy development, property rights, and free-market principles of stewardship.” ATI and its affiliates are pro-development and against expanded environmental regulation, according to SourceWatch’s documentation, made up of “a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation.” [SOURCEWATCH, 2012]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Entity Tags: American Tradition Institute, American Tradition Partnership, Donald Ferguson, James C. Nelson, 1912 Corrupt Practices Act (Montana), SourceWatch, US Supreme Court, Paul S. Ryan, Montana Supreme Court, James Bopp, Jr, Richard L. HasenTimeline Tags: Civil Liberties</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mcChesney dollarocracy: rfk says CU completes hostile takeover of gov by corps p6 ecowach oct 2012</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">aspen?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have attended these events. (According to Salon, "Thomas claimed he just made "a brief drop-by" at the Koch brothers' January 2008 Palm Springs political retreat to give a talk; in fact he was reimbursed for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” by the Federalist Society.[56]"). The attendance of Thomas and Scalia has sparked debate over judicial ethics and the 2010 Citizens United decision.[57] Common Cause filed a petition with the Justice Department in January 2011 alleging a conflict of interest for these Justices, as David and Charles Koch operate foundations that contribute to political groups, which might benefit from relaxed campaign finance rules. [58] Common Cause has also noted that the Cato Institute, which Charles Koch founded, filed an amicus brief in Citizens United opposing campaign finance. [59] The Center for Competitive Politics also filed a brief in the case; the Center is headed by Bradley Smith, who is affiliated with the Institute for Humane Studies where Charles Koch is Chair of the board and funder. [60] SW koch ind</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Maine became the 13th state in the nation to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Twenty-five House Republicans (in the state House) and five Senate Republicans joined Democrats to “call upon each Member of the Maine Congressional Delegation to actively support and promote in Congress an amendment to the United States Constitution on campaign finance.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Maine joins West Virginia, Colorado, Montana, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Rhode Island, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico and Hawaii in calling for that Constitutional amendment. Which means momentum:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/51837416#51824772 (ingram question inhofe)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">email blast that BO wrecking economy and superrich pulling $ from mkt on day Dow? hit record 1500 3 days cf TPM</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">180 (on 180 ?) 12/6/11: at heritage http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/huntsman-reverses-stance-n_1132156.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and current Republican presidential candidate, earned accolades from environmental advocates earlier this year for denouncing his fellow presidential contenders -- chiefly Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann -- for their regressive views on matters of science, including human-induced global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"When you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution -- " said Huntsman during an early September debate. "All I'm saying is that in order for the Republican party to win, we can't run from science."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now it appears that Huntsman, a former U.S. ambassador to China who has been trailing badly in the polls, is recalibrating his own thoughts on the science behind global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman expressed skepticism about the science on climate change, so now all GOP candidates are on the record as doubting either that the planet is clearly warming, or that people are responsible for most of the warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Of all the GOP candidates, Huntsman had been the most supportive of action on climate change: in 2007, as governor of Utah, he signed up his state for a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There has been an increase in climate skepticism in the past year and a growing reluctance to say anything about climate, especially among Republicans. The turning point--argued the National Journal's cover story, "Heads in the Sand"--was the 2010 Supreme Court decision that lifted restrictions on campaign spending and boosted so-called super political action committees (super PACs) that can take unlimited funds.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The deniers haven't won yet, though, argued Bill Chameides of Duke University. Most Americans accept the basics of climate change, more investment went into green energy than fossil fuels in 2010, and some of the biggest energy companies--such as ExxonMobil--affirm that climate change is real.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Tradition_Institute</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">THIS INCLUDES CORPORATE PERSONHOOD</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">in favor: Roberts, kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">opposed: A dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a new case — McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The McCutcheon case attempts to undermine the total combined contributions limit for individuals (already set at tens of thousands of dollars), which will open a whole new floodgate of cash into our electoral system reserved only for the wealthy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">kochs claim rosa parks http://www.prwatch.org/node/11946</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">gp bbb: coalition for child fut w/ CU helped newt (w/ hit ads?) : demo child molester, bill yellowtail convicted felon and wife beater, pushpoll senate kansas jewess; 29 vulnerable demos targetted, 12 lost, some by less than 200 votes, incl 2 above 90; dir says forced to sign over 700K blank checks; triad; CU also laundred $, called a coincidence when called on it 91; fred thompson started to go after 3; CU foster friess and triad koch; got gig after red october; gop leaders took his subpoena power 93 Trent lott; no witnesses</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">superpacs?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">propublica overview and update: http://www.propublica.org/article/flood-of-secret-campaign-cash-its-not-all-citizens-united</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The emergence of nonprofits as the leading conduit for anonymous spending in this year's presidential campaign is often attributed to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which opened the money spigot, allowing corporations and unions to buy ads urging people to vote for or against specific candidates.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But a closer look shows that there are several reasons that tens of millions of dollars of secret money are flooding this year's campaign. Actions — and inaction — by both the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service have contributed just as much to the flood of tens of millions of dollars of secret money into the 2012 campaign. Congress did not act on a bill that would have required disclosure after Citizens United and other court rulings opened the door to secret political spending.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To understand how all this happened, it's worth returning to Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United, and the political system the court envisioned. In the decision's key finding, Kennedy and four other justices said the First Amendment entitled corporations and unions to the same unlimited rights of political speech and spending as any citizen.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But in a less-noticed portion of the ruling, Kennedy and seven of his colleagues upheld disclosure rules and emphasized the role of transparency. Undue corporate or union influence on elections, he wrote, could be addressed by informed voters and shareholders who would instantly access campaign finance facts from their laptops or smart phones.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"With the advent of the Internet," Kennedy wrote, "prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If a company wasted money on politics, the justices agreed, its shareholders could use the publicly available information to "determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits." Separately, the sunshine of public disclosure will let "citizens see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way," Kennedy concluded. "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A very different system has taken shape. As our reporting this week showed, money for political ads is pouring into non-profits ostensibly dedicated to promoting social welfare. These groups are paying for many of the negative ads clogging the airwaves, but are not disclosing their donors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As a result, it's entirely unclear whether these ads are being paid for by unions and corporations empowered by Citizens United or by wealthy individuals.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Separately, corporations have resisted calls to list their donations to political social welfare nonprofits or other political spending. So far, the Securities and Exchange Commission has not responded to a rulemaking petition asking for it to develop rules to require public companies to disclose that spending.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Supreme Court's opening of the door to hefty flows of secret money began years before Citizens United. In a 2007 case (PDF) involving a nonprofit called Wisconsin Right to Life, the justices ruled that unions and corporations could buy ads that mentioned a candidate in the weeks before an election as long as the commercials stopped short of directly advocating the candidate's election or defeat. Even if these ads, known as "electioneering communications," clearly attacked the positions of one candidate, they were permissible unless they were "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The flood began and the identities of hardly any of the donors were disclosed. The reason? A decision by the FEC, the oversight panel with three Republicans and three Democrats who frequently deadlock.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After Wisconsin Right to Life, the FEC told social welfare nonprofits that they had to disclose only if the donors specifically earmarked the money for political ads. "It proved to be the exception that swallowed the rule," said Paul S. Ryan, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit, non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance. The day the FEC adopted this rule, Ryan wrote on his blog that it would allow massive amounts of secret money into politics. He proved correct.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2006, ads bought by groups that didn't disclose their donors amounted to less than 2 percent of outside spending, excluding party committees, research by the Center for Responsive Politics shows. By 2008, that number hit 25 percent; by 2010, more than 40 percent.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">All of this raises an intriguing question: Was Kennedy aware when he drafted the January 2010 Citizens United opinion that nonprofits were being widely used to avoid public disclosure of political spending?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the least, critics say, Kennedy was poorly informed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Justice Kennedy was living in a fantasy land," said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at Stetson University College of Law who tracks campaign finance issues. "I wish the world he envisaged exists. It doesn't."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Instead, this is the disclosure world that exists: Someone who gives up to $2,500 to the campaign of President Barack Obama or challenger Mitt Romney will have his or her name, address and profession listed on the FEC website for all to see. But that same person can give $1 million or more to a social welfare group that buys ads supporting or attacking those same candidates and stay anonymous.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This year, a federal judge struck down the FEC rule stemming from Wisconsin Right to Life. The FEC announced in July that major donors to electioneering communications — ads that focus on issues without directly advocating for candidates — would have to be named.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Already, groups are looking for work-arounds. They're running different kinds of ads. Some will name other social welfare nonprofits as their donors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The loose oversight by the FEC helped bring so much anonymous money into campaign finance. But no one expects the commission to take a more assertive role anytime soon. Dan Backer, a lawyer who represents several conservative nonprofits, likened the deadlocked agency to a "cute bunny” while referring to the IRS as a "500-pound gorilla.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The IRS or Congress are more plausible avenues for change, experts say. Ryan said he was hopeful that Congress and the IRS might some day limit ads from groups that don't disclose their donors. The 2012 campaign, though, appears to be a lost cause. "I think this election will be mired and perhaps overwhelmed by secret money," Ryan said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">reports and actions don't match? http://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofits-spend-millions-on-elections-and-call-it-public-welfare</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CU http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/states-struggle-to-find-way-in-a-post-citizens-united-world</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">States Struggle to Find Way in a Post-Citizens United World</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">July 31, 2012</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">by Clark Taylor</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court paved the way for unprecedented amounts of outside campaign spending by powerful interests. As a result, billionaires like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have pledged to spend up to $400 million in an all-out effort to ensure that the voices of the richest few are heard the loudest.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The numbers support the trend. Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at University of California, Irvine, says outside campaign spending through March 8 amounts to more than $88 million for federal elections. This represents a significant contrast to the $37.5 million in 2004 and $14.2 million in 2000. The growth is even starker in mid-term years as the same spending jumped from $1.8 million in 2006 to $15.8 million in 2010.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Perhaps most disconcerting, this regime has led to a situation in which the superrich can spend more and more on elections without any disclosure. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in testimony before a Senate committee, claimed that there were at least 23 families worth over $1 billion who have given more than $250,000 in campaign contributions this cycle. Just 196 Americans have given more than 80 percent of the total money donated to super PACs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Groups and individuals have proposed efforts to help blunt the or counter powerful interests seeking to sway elections. Professor Lawrence Lessig has advocated for a series of citizen conventions to craft a constitutional amendment. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has called for a constitutional amendment. The group Free Speech for People also proposes a constitutional amendment. Jeff Clements, co-founder and president of the group, stated in written testimony to the Senate, that a constitutional amendment was needed to restore congressional power over campaign finance regulation. Perhaps the closest Congress has come to reform was the DISCLOSE ACT, which would have required that independent groups disclose those donors who give more than $10,000. Though the bill received support from a majority of the Senate, Republicans blocked the measure using a procedural move.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But states also face growing challenges to ensure their elections are not bought by the superrich. The National Institute on Money in State Politics says that approximately $623M has been raised by candidates and committees for state offices so far this cycle. That number is in comparison to $2.9 billion which has been raised by federal campaigns, parties, and super PACs through March.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In spite of the Supreme Court’s decision to summarily reverse a century old Montana law put in place to protect the citizens of Montana from outright corruption at the hands of mining magnates, some states are forging ahead to fight for workable solutions. So far, 19 states have passed laws requiring more disclosure since Citizens United. Other states have eliminated limits, while others have no limits, and others still have limits in place only for corporations and unions. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other states are finding it more difficult to forge a path forward. In Connecticut, Governor Malloy (D) vetoed a bill that would have required disclosure of campaign contributions. Though Malloy claimed to be for transparency, in his veto message he argued that the bill likely violated the Constitution in light of Citizens United. The business community applauded the veto. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Perhaps the most glaring example of a state struggling to find a path forward is Illinois. Earlier this month Governor Quinn (D) signed a law that eliminated campaign contribution limits. The law repealed another measure which had capped campaign contributions. While Quinn’s spokeswoman said the new law provided a ‘short-term fix,’ Brian Gladstein, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, knocked it as a way for the powerful to buy political favors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">slate: </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Numbers Don’t Lie</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If you aren’t sure Citizens United gave rise to the super PACs, just follow the money.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Richard L. Hasen|Posted Friday, March 9, 2012, at 2:56 PM ET</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/03/the_supreme_court_s_citizens_united_decision_has_led_to_an_explosion_of_campaign_spending.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">durbin fed bill?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">update: </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Seven states — California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont — have so far called for an amendment. Thousands and thousands of Public Citizen activists helped make these campaigns successful.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Public Citizen and allied organizations are advancing amendment resolutions or ballot initiatives in many other states, including Colorado, Montana and New Jersey.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">96 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 29 members of the U.S. Senate have formally endorsed an amendment — many after hearing from Public Citizen’s supporters and policy experts. We recently stepped up our campaign to build even more amendment momentum in Congress.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Public Citizen and our organizational partners have helped advance resolutions in over 400 cities and towns throughout the country, with many more on the horizon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Move to Amend Coalition</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.MoveToAm end.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">From: Bill Haff <bill.haff gmail="gmail" com="com" /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Don't forget this Supreme Court decision from 1996. Monsanto may cite this as a precedent if the initiative passes. Monsanto may argue they are being forced to disclose a "trivial fact" and claim free speech rights which include the right "not to speak." This is picked up from the WILPF timeline:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy [1996]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Supreme Court overturns a Vermont law requiring the labeling of all products containing bovine growth hormone. The right not to speak inheres in political and commercial speech alike and extends to statements of fact as well as statements of opinion....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">From: bodhirobin@pacific. net</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SCOTUS overturned corporate right to privacy in March 2011 based on the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">term "personal privacy." The court concluded that the word "person" is</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">defined in the law, and includes corporations and trade unions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the word "personal" is not defined in the law, and has a very</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">human-like sense about it and can't be applied to a corporation. To see</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the exact language of the decision:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.outsidet hebeltway. com/corporations -dont-have- privacy-rights/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Therefore, Corporations may currently have 1st Amendment Free Speech</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">rights, 4th Amendment Unreasonable Search & Seizure rights, 5th Amendment</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">private property rights, and they got this all with their 1886 14th</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amendment rights to Due Process of Law awarded during the Railroad Baron</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">days in SCOTUS case: Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Beckwith (1889).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[They didn't waste much time, did they?]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But they don't have "personal privacy" rights.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In Peace,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Robin Sunbeam</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ukiah</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SEE </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011/12/david-swanson-history-of-corporate-personhood-how-lewis-powell-us-chamber-of-commerce-bought-the-us-supreme-court/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Jeffrey Clements, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, AlterNet</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.amazon.com/Corporations-Are-Not-People-Rights/dp/1609941055</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The following is an excerpt of Jeffrey Clement’s Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do and What You Can Do About It.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Consequences</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The success of the Powell–Chamber of Commerce plan transformed American law, government, and society, with two devastating consequences for the country. First, corporations gained new political power at the expense of average citizens and voters. Corporations poured out money to lobbying and election campaigns and to help friendly politicians and hurt unfriendly politicians. With even modest reform crushed by corporate rights decisions such as Bellotti v. First National Bank of Boston — and now much more so, Citizens United — corporations could threaten “independent expenditure” campaigns against politicians who did not bend their way. Corporate money to influence legislative votes and politician behavior lost its scandalous, shameful nature. Bags of corporate cash were no longer bags of cash; they were “speech.” How could “speech” be corrupt or scandalous?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington and many state capitals became playgrounds for corporate lobbyists, and our elected representatives became increasingly disconnected from the will of the people. With the new, organized corporate radicalism, staggering amounts of corporate money flooded Washington and our political system. Between 1998 and 2010, for example, the Chamber of Commerce spent $739 million on lobbying. Pharmaceutical and health care corporations spent more than $2 billion on lobbying in the past twelve years. Three corporations seeking military contracts, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Lockheed, and Boeing, spent more than $400 million on lobbying. GE Corporation ($237 million), AT&T ($162 million), the pharmaceutical corporate lobby PHRMA ($195 million), ExxonMobil ($151 million), Verizon ($149 million), and many more corporations all joined the lobby- fest.25 Financial, labor, energy, environmental, health, trade, and other legislation and policy tilted in favor of corporate interests; the hurdles for advancing the public interest became much higher.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After Santa Clara</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For several years the Court went along with the state regulation of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporations, as if Santa Clara had never happened. The pendulum finally swung in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the late 1890s, with new judges on the bench and a growing fear that Populist and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Progressive reforms against the power of money had become a dangerous assault on</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">capital. The Court reacted with a flurry of decisions typified by Gulf, Colorado and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Santa Fe Railway Company v. Ellis (1897). There the Court called corporate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">personhood “well settled,” and cited Santa Clara. It went on to claim Fourteenth</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amendment protections in ruling that a state had violated the equal protection</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">clause with a law that would have made railroads pay attorneys’ fees in certain cases.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It could hardly be more ironic that one year before, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the same</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Court gutted the equal protection clause as applied to racial minorities (Gans & Kendall, 2010).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The case that gave its name to this era of anti-progressive decisions was</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lochner v. New York (1905). In a 5-4 decision the Court struck down a state law</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that limited the number of hours a baker could work (10 hours/day, 60/week). This</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and similar decisions came with dissenting minority opinions based on well settled law</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that affirmed the government’s power to regulate corporations in the public</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">interest. The majority opinions were widely seen as distortions of first principles.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How could our vast store of constitutional imperatives, established by decades of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">case law, suddenly compel us to defend corporate property at the expense of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">individual life and liberty?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Just as the Lochner era seemed at or near its end, Warren Harding became</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">president in 1920. He soon reminded the nation of the close link between politics</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">18</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and law when he installed four new Justices and a solid conservative majority.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Overnight the new Court revived Lochner-like protection of corporate liberty at the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">expense of the public good. Again there were strong dissents, but the minority</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">views of such Justices as Holmes and Brandeis would not rise to majority until the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dawn of a new political era, the New Deal. President Roosevelt, stymied by a hostile</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">judiciary, failed in his threat to enlarge the Court in 1937. However, the same year</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">produced a “spontaneous” shift favorable to New Deal policies when Justice Owen</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Roberts suddenly joined the four New Deal dissenters (Hughes, Brandeis, Cardozo</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and Stone). This time the Lochner vampire slept for several decades. It was an age</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">of first principles and government regulation to prevent corporate abuse of state-granted</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">privileges.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It too came to an end. The 1970s brought in a flock of federal regulations</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">about clean air and water, pollution, occupational safety, and other matters</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">beneficial to the public. Upset about compliance costs and frightened by the likes of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">reformer Ralph Nader, corporations sought the advice of Lewis Powell through the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">auspices of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Powell, a corporate lawyer and soon-to-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">be Supreme Court Justice, advised them to seek recourse in the law. “American</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by courts as by the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">important instrument for social, economic and political change.” (Nace, 2003, p.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">156.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With Powell on the bench, after confirmation hearings in which he portrayed</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">himself as a moderate, the Court turned right in First National Bank of Boston v.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bellotti (1978). Writing for the majority, Powell opined that a bank had a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fourteenth Amendment right to use its treasury funds to oppose a state</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">referendum for a state income tax. To limit the political speech of a corporation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">would be to violate the First Amendment, because the latter was meant to protect</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">political speech, whether the speaker was a natural person or a corporation. The</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">important thing was to protect the listener’s right to hear a vigorous debate. As far</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">as corporations were concerned, that was what the First Amendment was about.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Powell did not explain why it was not sufficient to protect the free speech of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporate officers as ordinary individuals. He did not explain why my listener’s right</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">to receive information should give a corporate director the right to take from</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">shareholders the money needed to send me that information.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The dissenters were strong and clear, but only dissenters. Powell and his four</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">colleagues ignored nearly 200 years of constitutional limits on corporate participation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">in elections because they chose to do so. However, they did not go all the way:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">They withheld their blessing from corporate interference in the election of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">candidates for political office. Referenda were fair game, but candidates taboo.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Court went back and forth on this issue for several years, until another</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">election installed another conservative president, who turned the Court hard right</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">with two new appointments. The president was George W. Bush; the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">appointments, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This new Court headed off toward</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its own Lochner era (Constitutional</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">19</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Accountability Center, 2010). It crossed the line in 2010 with its Citizens United</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">decision.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The new era started in the 2008 primary season with a video-on-demand</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">movie against Hillary Clinton. Citizens United was the corporation that planned to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">release the film. The impediment was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA),</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">which kept corporations from spending treasury funds on corporate electioneering</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ads for broadcast shortly before any federal election. In court, Citizens United asked</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that its anti-Hillary film be exempted as a feature-length movie seen only by those</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">willing to pay. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Court could have ruled narrowly, as it usually prefers to do, by ruling the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">film an exception to the BCRA. However, the majority saw a chance to outdo</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Powell with a constitutional right to transmute corporate gold into political power.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dissenter Justice Stevens thought the majority had changed the facts of the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">case itself so as to make new law. Nevertheless, the majority, including Chief Justice</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">John Roberts, who had seemed so respectful of precedent during his confirmation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">hearings, went ahead and made new law. They simply denied any radical departure</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">from constitutional case law, and ruled that corporations are associations of citizens</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">entitled to full constitutional protection. Accordingly, campaign laws that target</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporations for special treatment violate the First Amendment. Critics saw the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ruling as an open door to foreign corporations willing to buy influence in American</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For the majority, Justice Kennedy offered four justifications. Gans and Kendall</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(2010) list and counter each one, as follows:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">First: The First Amendment covers freedom of speech, and is not restricted</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">to people or citizens. Counter: As far back as John Marshall and the Dartmouth</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">contracts decision, the Court has distinguished people from corporations and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">permitted special rules for corporate charters. Political speech is uniquely human,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and the identity of the speaker has always been relevant: In World War 2 a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">broadcast to U.S. troops by Tokyo Rose would not have had the same treatment as</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">one by President Roosevelt.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Second: As corporations are associations of citizens, and citizens can spend</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">money on elections, so can corporations. Counter: They are not mere associations</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">of citizens. Government gives them special privileges, such as limited liability and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">perpetual life, for special advantage in the amassing of wealth. A handful of officers</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">command the corporate ship; the others are investors along for the cruise and a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">share of the profits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Third: Unlimited corporate expenditures are a necessary means of protecting</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the rights of the listeners, the voters. Counter: Corporation officers, as individuals,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">already have the same freedom to spend as anyone else. In addition, corporations</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">already pump millions of dollars into our elections through corporate PACs (Political</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Action Committees). As for voters, they have repeatedly expressed their fear that</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporate spending will overpower the voice of the people.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fourth: Because media corporations have First Amendment protections, so</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">must all corporations. Counter: The First Amendment specifies “the press” for its</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">unique role. For good reason, the press is the only private business with explicit</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">20</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">constitutional protection: It has a fiduciary responsibility to the public.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) appears to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">be weak in logic and bereft of constitutional tradition. It is Ninth Circuit law, vintage</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Justice Field. As such, it is nothing new. Perhaps we are fortunate to have seen no</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">more than we have of political decisions, dressed up as law, adopted by some Court</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">majority simply because it is a Court majority. But we have seen it before and may</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">well see it again from the Roberts Court: As we still ban corporations from direct</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">campaign contributions, much good law remains to be undone.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Today</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And there it sits. It permeates the literature,...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://movetoamend.org/sites/default/files/ClimateOfCorpPersonhood.pdf</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/buying_justice_the_impact_of_citizens_united_on_judicial_elections/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">slate:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">You will doubtless hear today that 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens read aloud from his partial dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission for almost 20 minutes in a slow, halting voice, periodically getting tangled up in thickets of words like "corporation" and "corruption." Meanwhile, a loud banging noise from the bench all but drowned him out. That's true. But Justice Anthony Kennedy fared no better reading from his majority opinion beforehand, tearing through the first part of his summary, then losing his place and stumbling through the holding. If Citizens United really represents the moment at which the Roberts court allows itself to finally give voice to its full-throated judicial activism, it's not clear Anthony Kennedy managed much more than a vocal mumble. He looked like he'd have preferred to have been reading his dissent from a soapbox. Or maybe from a crouch underneath the bench. Stevens haltingly worked his way through all five of his objections to the majority's holding today. Kennedy barely gulped out the holding itself.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In part, as Rick Hasen suggests that's because Kennedy's soaring sonnet for corporate free speech has very little to do with the case at hand. The court had to reach out far beyond any place it needed to go to strike down century-old restrictions on corporate spending in federal elections. This started off as a case about a single movie. It morphed into John Roberts' Golden Globe night.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see NEW ORG</font></div></div>