cu

this is a tag for citizens united, so later content. maybe i should make separate nodes for the organization and the ct decision

see also campaign finance reform and 28th amendment corp/personhood

capt 316

http://blog.pfaw.org/content/money-politics-survey-shows-toxic-legacy-roberts-court

Money in Politics Survey Shows the Toxic Legacy of the Roberts Court

Tue, 06/02/2015 - 3:33pm — Paul

The New York Times published a poll this morning that reveals - not at all surprisingly - that overwhelming majorities of Americans are thoroughly fed up with money in politics.

Among the findings:

Fewer than a third of Americans think all Americans have an equal chance to influence the elections process, while two-thirds say that the wealthy have more influence.
85% said our system for funding political campaigns either needs fundamental changes or, even more, needs to be rebuilt completely.
Nearly three in five are pessimistic that changes will be made to improve campaign funding.

So a substantial majority of Americans think that the wealthy few have so much sway over elected officials that changes wanted by 85% of the population will not be made.

Such a lack of faith in the ability of our electoral system to channel popular will cannot be healthy for a democracy. For this, we can thank the Roberts Court, which helped create this situation with decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon.

The far right conservatives on the Supreme Court have severely narrowed the permissible goals of laws regulating money in politics. They acknowledge that laws can be passed to prevent corruption and its appearance, but they have reduced that concept to little more than outright bribery. In other words, the current 5-4 majority on the Court has ruled that our elected governments cannot pass laws to address the arrogation of political influence and power by campaign funders with vast concentrations of wealth. When a narrow sliver of the nation's wealthiest individuals and families are able to leverage their political spending into special attention and favorable treatment from elected officials, democracy is not harmed in the eyes of the Roberts Court, but is instead working the way it is supposed to. It's simply constituents supporting candidates they support, and elected officials being appropriately responsive to their concerns.

So five years after Citizens United, it is not surprising that so many Americans have so little faith in the ability of our electoral democracy to function properly. This is just another part of the toxic legacy of the Roberts Court.

But it isn't the end of the story. As Americans' level of revulsion at the extent of money in politics continues to rise, elected officials will eventually have to take notice. It will not be the first time that a popular movement has prompted electoral and political changes too strong to be stopped by those who President Theodore Roosevelt once called the malefactors of great wealth. As with movements of the past, the will of the many can overcome the might of a few.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/21/378920565/shouts-of-protest-at-supreme-court-on-citizens-united-anniversary

Washington (CNN)A rare disturbance broke out in the Supreme Court on Wednesday as several protesters stood up and shouted what appeared to be comments criticizing the court's controversial 2010 Citizens United campaign finance decision that was issued five years ago this month.

As court opened, Chief Justice John Roberts was preparing to announce the day's opinions when he was cut off by the first protester who shouted, "We are the 99%."

Roberts then tried to joke, "Our second order of business today is ..." until he was cut off by a second protester.

READ: What didn't make the State of the Union?

A group called 99rise has taken credit for the disruption. The group, which calls itself a grassroots organization trying to get money out of politics, issued a press release saying in part: "We have seen the consequences of the free flow of private money rushing into our public political system."

They named the 7 protesters who were escorted from the chamber today.

The case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was decided in 2010. A divided court struck limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions.

According to Garrett Epps, a professor at the University of Baltimore, who was in court, a total of seven protesters stood up shouting statements such as, "money is not speech" and "overturn Citizens United."

At one point, according to Epps, after all protesters had been led out, Roberts said, "We will now continue with our tradition of having open court in the Supreme Court building."

Kathleen L. Arberg, the court's public information officer, released a statement said that the incident involved a total of 8 individuals. Seven of them have been charged with making "a harangue or oration, or uttering loud, threatening or abusive language in the Supreme Court."

The eighth person was also charged with "conspiracy-related offenss" arising from the courtroom disturbance.

Arberg said they have been taken to Capitol Police for processing and will then be transported to police headquarters.

Such disturbances have occurred before at the court but they are rare. Last year, Kai Newkirk, the co-founder of the group, briefly interrupted other arguments with a similar message. The group later released a video of his protest that was taken with a hidden camera by someone presumably linked to the group. Court rules forbid cameras in the chamber.

Coincidently, President Barack Obama also released a statement today criticizing the Citizens United opinion: "With each new campaign season," the statement said, dark money floods our airwaves with more and more political ads that pull our politics into the gutter."

IRATE

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

In Buckley, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA),

which limits campaign contributions, but also ruled that spending money to influence elections

is constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law (e.g., candidates

can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns).

Issue: FECA set up rules in the wake of the Watergate era electoral corruption, limiting and

requiring disclosure of campaign contributions and spending, creating the Federal Election

Commission (FEC), and establishing an optional system of public financing for presidential

elections. Are these a violation of First Amendment free speech protections?

Rule: First Amendment freedom of speech (expression) and Fifth Amendment due process of

law.

Application: In 1975, former NY Senator James Buckley, presidential candidate Eugene

McCarthy and others sued Francis Valeo, the Secretary of the Senate and FEC. The Court

upheld the $1,000 limit because it prevents "the actuality and appearance of corruption

resulting from large individual financial contributions” and explicitly rejected that contribution

limits violate First Amendment free speech rights. The Court stated "To the extent that large

contributions are given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential

officeholders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined."

Moreover, such limits ". . . serve the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of

the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and

candidates to engage in political debate and discussion."

However, the majority ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of

constitutionally protected free speech, and that candidates can give unlimited amounts of

money to their own campaigns since they could not be corrupted by spending their own money

and that equalizing candidates’ resources was not sufficient to override the candidate’s free

speech right.

Transformation: Buckley provided some loopholes and precedents that were expanded in

later cases, virtually eliminating it. Notably, Citizens United references Buckley several times,

but vastly expands its protections on "money as speech." Moreover, it allowed rich individuals

and corporations to give large amounts of money to 501(c)(4) SuperPACs, which do not have to

say where it came from.

Effect: Negative attack ads, some even containing factual misrepresentations, are allowed.

Because of corruption, the financial system became deregulated, leading to both the 2007

financial collapse and the largest wealth inequality since the 1929 stock market crash. Very

wealthy candidates can fund their own campaigns, and several candidates are able to stay in

the race thanks to a single billionaire.

Fictional Representational Story: I'm Valerie Valenzuela. After I joined the PTA to raise

money to keep music in the schools my three children attend, I realized the problems were

substantial. I served two terms on the school board and as a replacement appointment on the

county board of supervisors. I've been an effective advocate for my constituents, an innovative

problem solver, and adept at building coalitions. Even so, I was surprised when my party asked

me to run for state assembly. To get our local and regional projects approved, I have built

strong relationships at the state capitol and a good working knowledge of how it works.

Running against a former dot.com executive with no public service experience, and an

incumbent with significant corporate and PAC funding, would mean endless ads attacking my

character. The only way I could survive this would be to sell out to special interest donors.

Written by: Patrick McKercher Disclaimer: For educational purpose only.

Celsius 41.11 is a 2004 documentary film produced to be a rebuttal to Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. 41.11 °C was chosen because, according to the makers of the movie, it is the temperature at which the brain begins to die.

The film addresses five charges made against George W. Bush in Moore's film and criticizes 2004Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. It was released during the run-up to the 2004 United States Presidential general election.

It took six weeks to make Celsius 41.11. The production was funded and the film distributed to a limited number of movie theaters by Citizens United, a conservative political organization. Celsius 41.11performed less well at the box office than comparable left leaning documentaries and significantly poorer than Fahrenheit 9/11. The producer attributed this to voter fatigue and to a time tabling clash with theWorld Series.

The critics' response was described as "irk[ed]" by the BBC. A number of critics described the film as a campaign advertisement for George W. Bush. Several believed that the movie would appeal primarily to convinced supporters of George W. Bush and was unlikely to sway undecided voters or change the opinion of Kerry supporters. The critics felt the film shared the flaws of Fahrenheit 9/11 without sharing all of its virtues, in particular it was criticised for a comparative lack of emotion. The reliability of some of the individuals interviewed was questioned by the New York Times and the Boston Globe. Critics frequently compared the style to that of a PowerPoint presentation with some adding that the speed with which the film had been produced was evident in the quality of the finished product. Opinions as to the quality of the arguments advanced varied with Michael Graham of the National Review stating that the film had done a "solid job" in answering Moore's arguments whilst Maitland McDonagh of TV Guidecalled the film a "shrill, repetitive screed".

[hide]

- 6 References
- 7 External links

The production of Celsius 41.11 was funded by the conservative grassroots political organization Citizens United.^[1] The organization's president, David Bossie, was surprised at the success of Fahrenheit 9/11 both at the box office and in rallying support for the Democratic political position.^[3] "After seeing Moore's impact, I wanted to counterpunch", he said to the LA Times in 2004, adding that, "Documentaries have become a weapon of the left".^[1]Celsius 41.11 took six weeks to make^[4] and includes a song, John Boy, specially written and performed by the country music singer Larry Gatlin.^[4

...

Celsius 41.11 rebutts five arguments advanced by Fahrenheit 9/11 and additionally criticizes John Kerry, arguing that his opposition to the Vietnam war and his military service in that same war are contradictory positions.^[7] The opening images of the film are of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center on September 11.^[6] The film then moves to clips of the demonstrations against the war in Iraq, including an interview with an unnamed protester who says she would be happy to live under a dictatorship if the ruler provided universal health care.^[6] The next segment shows images of dead children.^[6]

The film alleges that a feud between the White House and the CIA resulted in Bill Clinton refusing to broker the surrender of Osama bin Laden in 1997.^[8]

It also contains a list of the terrorist attacks that have occurred since the Iran hostage crisis that one reviewer described as "chilling".^[8]

Speeches made by John Kerry and running mate John Edwards on the danger posed by the weapons of mass destruction Iraq was accused of possessing are also included.^[8]

Participants

- Fred Thompson - politician, former Senator
- Charles Krauthammer - neo-conservative columnist, political commentator
- Michael Ledeen - foreign policy specialist
- Mansoor Ijaz - media commentator on terrorism
- Michael Barone - political analyst, pundit, journalist
- Michael Medved - neo-conservative political commentator
- Fred Barnes - neo-conservative political commentator
- Joshua Muravchik - scholar specialising in Middle East politics, democracy and the history of socialism
- Barbara Comstock - politician
- Victoria Toensing - lawyer, legal commentator
- Bill Sammon - Vice-president of Fox News
- John O'Neill - Vietnam war veteran, lawyer and spokesman for Swift Vets and POWs for Truth
- Alice S. Fisher ===

yikes, CU meets local ordinances:

Early in April, coal industry executive Shaun McCutcheon won big when the Supreme Courtswept 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.

This story began when ordinary citizensjoined 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 wouldban public financial incentives to unsustainable energy producers and their major business partners.

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 boardverified the signatures, and began preparing to print ballots.

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.

But you’d be wrong: There was no vote. Instead, thecoal company’s lawyers rushedto 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.

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.

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.

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.

Ron Fein is the Legal Director forFree Speech For People, an organization dedicated to challenging the misuse of corporate power and restoring republican democracy to the people.

http://grist.org/business-technology/do-coal-companies-have-more-rights-than-voters/

citizensunited614

6/12/2014

webodec3 Brain Control

Explore Account Logout Support Download

Franklin Ctr for Gov't and Public IntegrityAmerican Crossroads GPSWebofDCeitGLOBAL WARMINGSKEPTIC/DENIERFUNDER$FRONTSPOLITICIANSINDUSTRIE$LOBBYIST$MEDIAFLACKSHACKSDIRTY TRICKSREVOLVING DOORRegent University2010, B2, bp, Brooks Bros Riot, CFG, cheney, Denier, energy, fedsoc, gop, Koch, rnc, rove, TP, xlGriffin, T Rep1994 Newt Revo, 501(c)3, Agda21, alec, Koch, NorquistNRACitizens United CUati, CoC, cu, Mod, UberCitizens United CUaei, alec, api, cato, CFG, coors, crc, cu, Exxon, fedsoc, heartland, hub, Koch, libertarian, PacRes, scaife, spn, tobacco, walmrt, wise use, xlCATOapi, Berman, BM, chevrn, coal, CoC, cu, DCI, Exxon, gs, Mod, Norquist, PR, revolving door, UberLOBBYIST$ROBERTS, J Ch JusticeatiWestern Tradi Partnership, ...democratBrown, Sherrod SenDenier, gop, TPDuncan, J repgmu, KochInstitute for Humane Studie...527, coal, Denier, rncMcCutcheon v FECati, coal, CoC, frack, gop, poor, swingMontanaActivistOCCUPYbeckSorosCLIMATEHAWK, democratUdall, T SenUnited Nations UNPioneerCommon CauseHillarygopO'Connor, SgopThompson, F SenAustin v. Michigan Chamber...Breyer, JusticeBuckley v ValeoCLIMATEHAWKDeutch, TGinsburg, JusticeMcConnell v FECNon-US CTT/Front501(c)3, 501(c)4, CoC, gps, Koch, rnc, rove, superpac, UberAmerican Crossroads GPSaei, alec, api, ati, cfact, Defunct, evil, Fox, hub, Koch, PacRes, UberAmerican Tradition Inst ATIati, Christian, fedsoc, gop, rncBopp, JCFG, cu, dark$, Enforcer, Koch, TPClub for Growthcoors, gop, PioneerNixonActivistACTIVIST SUPPRESSION501(c)3, abramoff, Agda21, alec, api, ati, beck, CFG, Denier, Koch, Norquist, spn, TPAFP AMs FOR PROSPERITY Kochacsh, alec, Berman, BM, GMOnsanto, pacleg, SLAPP, syngentaAgribiz/GMOB2, coors, Fox, gop, Norquist, Pioneer, tobaccoAILES, RCA, ModCampaign Finance Reformalec, bofa, coal, cu, jpm, Koch, roveCOAL2

antagonist

support

Citizens United CUEdit

Citizens United

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_United

yikes, CU meets local ordinances:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://grist.org/business-technology/do-coal-companies-have-more-rights-than-voters/

Updating Disclosure for the New Era of Independent Spending

by Richard Briffault, Columbia Law School, April 16, 2012

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.

Read Now:Updating Disclosure for the New Era of Independent SpendingPDF 543 kB

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.

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.

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.”

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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. Hasen

Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties

mcChesney dollarocracy: rfk says CU completes hostile takeover of gov by corps p6 ecowach oct 2012

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

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.”

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:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/51837416#51824772 (ingram question inhofe)

email blast that BO wrecking economy and superrich pulling $ from mkt on day DOw? hit record 1500 3 days cf TPM

180 (on 180 ?) 12/6/11: at heritage http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/huntsman-reverses-stance-_n_1132156.html

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.

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Tradition_Institute

THIS INCLUDES CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

in favor: Roberts, kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito

opposed: A dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a new case — McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

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.

kochs claim rosa parks http://www.prwatch.org/node/11946

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

superpacs?

propublica overview and update: http://www.propublica.org/article/flood-of-secret-campaign-cash-its-not-all-citizens-united

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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."

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

At the least, critics say, Kennedy was poorly informed.

"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."

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.

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.

Already, groups are looking for work-arounds. They're running different kinds of ads. Some will name other social welfare nonprofits as their donors.

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.”

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.

reports and actions don't match? http://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofits-spend-millions-on-elections-and-call-it-public-welfare

CU http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/states-struggle-to-find-way-in-a-post-citizens-united-world

States Struggle to Find Way in a Post-Citizens United World

July 31, 2012

by Clark Taylor

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

slate:

The Numbers Don’t Lie

If you aren’t sure Citizens United gave rise to the super PACs, just follow the money.

By Richard L. Hasen|Posted Friday, March 9, 2012, at 2:56 PM ET

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

durbin fed bill?

update:

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.

Public Citizen and allied organizations are advancing amendment resolutions or ballot initiatives in many other states, including Colorado, Montana and New Jersey.

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.

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.

Move to Amend Coalition

http://www.MoveToAm end.org

From: Bill Haff

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:

International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy [1996]

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....

From: bodhirobin@pacific. net

SCOTUS overturned corporate right to privacy in March 2011 based on the

term "personal privacy." The court concluded that the word "person" is

defined in the law, and includes corporations and trade unions.

But the word "personal" is not defined in the law, and has a very

human-like sense about it and can't be applied to a corporation. To see

the exact language of the decision:

http://www.outsidet hebeltway. com/corporations -dont-have- privacy-rights/

Therefore, Corporations may currently have 1st Amendment Free Speech

rights, 4th Amendment Unreasonable Search & Seizure rights, 5th Amendment

private property rights, and they got this all with their 1886 14th

Amendment rights to Due Process of Law awarded during the Railroad Baron

days in SCOTUS case: Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Beckwith (1889).

[They didn't waste much time, did they?]

But they don't have "personal privacy" rights.

In Peace,

Robin Sunbeam

Ukiah

SEE

http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011/12/david-swanson-history-of-corporate-personhood-how-lewis-powell-us-chamber-of-commerce-bought-the-us-supreme-court/

By Jeffrey Clements, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, AlterNet

http://www.amazon.com/Corporations-Are-Not-People-Rights/dp/1609941055

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.

The Consequences

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?

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.

After Santa Clara

For several years the Court went along with the state regulation of

corporations, as if Santa Clara had never happened. The pendulum finally swung in

the late 1890s, with new judges on the bench and a growing fear that Populist and

Progressive reforms against the power of money had become a dangerous assault on

capital. The Court reacted with a flurry of decisions typified by Gulf, Colorado and

Santa Fe Railway Company v. Ellis (1897). There the Court called corporate

personhood “well settled,” and cited Santa Clara. It went on to claim Fourteenth

Amendment protections in ruling that a state had violated the equal protection

clause with a law that would have made railroads pay attorneys’ fees in certain cases.

It could hardly be more ironic that one year before, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the same

Court gutted the equal protection clause as applied to racial minorities (Gans & Kendall, 2010).

The case that gave its name to this era of anti-progressive decisions was

Lochner v. New York (1905). In a 5-4 decision the Court struck down a state law

that limited the number of hours a baker could work (10 hours/day, 60/week). This

and similar decisions came with dissenting minority opinions based on well settled law

that affirmed the government’s power to regulate corporations in the public

interest. The majority opinions were widely seen as distortions of first principles.

How could our vast store of constitutional imperatives, established by decades of

case law, suddenly compel us to defend corporate property at the expense of

individual life and liberty?

Just as the Lochner era seemed at or near its end, Warren Harding became

president in 1920. He soon reminded the nation of the close link between politics

and law when he installed four new Justices and a solid conservative majority.

Overnight the new Court revived Lochner-like protection of corporate liberty at the

expense of the public good. Again there were strong dissents, but the minority

views of such Justices as Holmes and Brandeis would not rise to majority until the

dawn of a new political era, the New Deal. President Roosevelt, stymied by a hostile

judiciary, failed in his threat to enlarge the Court in 1937. However, the same year

produced a “spontaneous” shift favorable to New Deal policies when Justice Owen

Roberts suddenly joined the four New Deal dissenters (Hughes, Brandeis, Cardozo

and Stone). This time the Lochner vampire slept for several decades. It was an age

of first principles and government regulation to prevent corporate abuse of state-granted

privileges.

It too came to an end. The 1970s brought in a flock of federal regulations

about clean air and water, pollution, occupational safety, and other matters

beneficial to the public. Upset about compliance costs and frightened by the likes of

reformer Ralph Nader, corporations sought the advice of Lewis Powell through the

auspices of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Powell, a corporate lawyer and soon-to-

be Supreme Court Justice, advised them to seek recourse in the law. “American

business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by courts as by the

executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system,

especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most

important instrument for social, economic and political change.” (Nace, 2003, p.

156.)

With Powell on the bench, after confirmation hearings in which he portrayed

himself as a moderate, the Court turned right in First National Bank of Boston v.

Bellotti (1978). Writing for the majority, Powell opined that a bank had a

Fourteenth Amendment right to use its treasury funds to oppose a state

referendum for a state income tax. To limit the political speech of a corporation

would be to violate the First Amendment, because the latter was meant to protect

political speech, whether the speaker was a natural person or a corporation. The

important thing was to protect the listener’s right to hear a vigorous debate. As far

as corporations were concerned, that was what the First Amendment was about.

Powell did not explain why it was not sufficient to protect the free speech of

corporate officers as ordinary individuals. He did not explain why my listener’s right

to receive information should give a corporate director the right to take from

shareholders the money needed to send me that information.

The dissenters were strong and clear, but only dissenters. Powell and his four

colleagues ignored nearly 200 years of constitutional limits on corporate participation

in elections because they chose to do so. However, they did not go all the way:

They withheld their blessing from corporate interference in the election of

candidates for political office. Referenda were fair game, but candidates taboo.

The Court went back and forth on this issue for several years, until another

election installed another conservative president, who turned the Court hard right

with two new appointments. The president was George W. Bush; the

appointments, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This new Court headed off toward

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its own Lochner era (Constitutional

Accountability Center, 2010). It crossed the line in 2010 with its Citizens United

decision.

The new era started in the 2008 primary season with a video-on-demand

movie against Hillary Clinton. Citizens United was the corporation that planned to

release the film. The impediment was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA),

which kept corporations from spending treasury funds on corporate electioneering

ads for broadcast shortly before any federal election. In court, Citizens United asked

that its anti-Hillary film be exempted as a feature-length movie seen only by those

willing to pay. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court could have ruled narrowly, as it usually prefers to do, by ruling the

film an exception to the BCRA. However, the majority saw a chance to outdo

Powell with a constitutional right to transmute corporate gold into political power.

Dissenter Justice Stevens thought the majority had changed the facts of the

case itself so as to make new law. Nevertheless, the majority, including Chief Justice

John Roberts, who had seemed so respectful of precedent during his confirmation

hearings, went ahead and made new law. They simply denied any radical departure

from constitutional case law, and ruled that corporations are associations of citizens

entitled to full constitutional protection. Accordingly, campaign laws that target

corporations for special treatment violate the First Amendment. Critics saw the

ruling as an open door to foreign corporations willing to buy influence in American

elections.

For the majority, Justice Kennedy offered four justifications. Gans and Kendall

(2010) list and counter each one, as follows:

First: The First Amendment covers freedom of speech, and is not restricted

to people or citizens. Counter: As far back as John Marshall and the Dartmouth

contracts decision, the Court has distinguished people from corporations and

permitted special rules for corporate charters. Political speech is uniquely human,

and the identity of the speaker has always been relevant: In World War 2 a

broadcast to U.S. troops by Tokyo Rose would not have had the same treatment as

one by President Roosevelt.

Second: As corporations are associations of citizens, and citizens can spend

money on elections, so can corporations. Counter: They are not mere associations

of citizens. Government gives them special privileges, such as limited liability and

perpetual life, for special advantage in the amassing of wealth. A handful of officers

command the corporate ship; the others are investors along for the cruise and a

share of the profits.

Third: Unlimited corporate expenditures are a necessary means of protecting

the rights of the listeners, the voters. Counter: Corporation officers, as individuals,

already have the same freedom to spend as anyone else. In addition, corporations

already pump millions of dollars into our elections through corporate PACs (Political

Action Committees). As for voters, they have repeatedly expressed their fear that

corporate spending will overpower the voice of the people.

Fourth: Because media corporations have First Amendment protections, so

must all corporations. Counter: The First Amendment specifies “the press” for its

unique role. For good reason, the press is the only private business with explicit

constitutional protection: It has a fiduciary responsibility to the public.

The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) appears to

be weak in logic and bereft of constitutional tradition. It is Ninth Circuit law, vintage

Justice Field. As such, it is nothing new. Perhaps we are fortunate to have seen no

more than we have of political decisions, dressed up as law, adopted by some Court

majority simply because it is a Court majority. But we have seen it before and may

well see it again from the Roberts Court: As we still ban corporations from direct

campaign contributions, much good law remains to be undone.

Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Today

And there it sits. It permeates the literature,...

http://movetoamend.org/sites/default/files/ClimateOfCorpPersonhood.pdf

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/buying_justice_the_impact_of_citizens_united_on_judicial_elections/

slate:

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.

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.

So Kennedy doesn't really find his voice today until he gets to the fist-pounding bits: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." "The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach." And: "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

As Stevens says in reading his dissent, none of that has anything to do with the court's decision to topple decades' worth of legal architecture that had never been questioned in the courts. And Kennedy's visceral terror of speech bans (the word "ban" appears 29 times in his 57-page opinion) and "censorship" seems to override any sort of temperate assessment of either the facts of the case before him, the lack of substantial record in the lower courts, the significance of the cases he is overruling, or the consequences of today's opinion. Perhaps because this is the same Anthony Kennedy who was so exquisitely sensitive to the corrupting influence of money on public confidence in judicial elections in the Caperton case about judicial corruption, it's hard to comprehend what it is about unlimited corporate contributions that so moves him.

If Kennedy is tentative this morning and Stevens is horrified, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas say nothing at all. They don't have to: They're the architects of the edifice Kennedy has erected. Reading from his dissent, Stevens describes their "sweeping" attacks on Michigan's campaign finance law in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (one of the cases overruled today) as "having planted the seed that flowered" into today's majority opinion.

One such bill is the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Constitutional Amendment, which was introduced by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) this past November. It overturns the Supreme Court's January 2010 Citizens United ruling which held that corporations have the constitutional right to spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections.

http://teddeutch.house.gov/Biography/tedbio.htm

montana bucks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme-court-corporate-spending_n_1182168.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=010512&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

b2 WI judge uses as basis to throw out cap 12/11

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11188

precedent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

http://www.enotes.com/buckley-v-valeo-reference/buckley-v-valeo

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law. The court also ruled candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

Contents

[hide]

1 Facts

2 Decision

3 Criticism

4 See also

5 Further reading

6 External links

[edit] Facts

In 1974, over the veto of President Gerald R. Ford, the Congress passed significant amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, creating the first comprehensive effort by the federal government to regulate campaign contributions and spending. The key parts of the amended law did the following

limited contributions to candidates for federal office (2 USC §441a)

required the disclosure of political contributions (2 USC §434),

provided for the public financing of presidential elections (IRC Subtitle H),

limited expenditures by candidates and associated committees,

except for presidential candidates who accepted public funding (formerly 18 U.S.C. §608(c) (1)(C-F)),

limited independent expenditures to $1000 (formerly 18 U.S.C. §608e),

limited candidate expenditures from personal funds (formerly 18 U.S.C. §608a),

created and fixed the method of appointing members to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) (formerly 2 U.S.C. §437c(a) (1)(A-C)).

A lawsuit was filed in the District Court for the D.C., on January 2, 1975, by Senator James L. Buckley of New York, former Senator, 1968 presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, and others. The suit was filed against Francis R. Valeo, the Secretary of the Senate and ex officio member of the FEC who represented the U.S. federal government. The court denied plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The petitioners sought for the district court to overturn the key provisions outlined above. They argued that the legislation was in violation of the 1st and 5th Amendment rights to freedom of expression and due process, respectively.

[edit] Decision

In a lengthy per curiam decision issued on January 30, 1976, the Court sustained the Act's limits on individual contributions, as well as the disclosure and reporting provisions and the public financing scheme. However, the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from personal funds were struck down.

The Court also held that the method for appointments to the Federal Election Commission was an unconstitutional violation of Separation of Powers.

dissent: http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/2282

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/2093

Hightower:

"We the Corporations?"

The Constitution itself makes no mention of corporations and creates no corporate rights. Our nation's founding document was deliberately written to guarantee sovereignty and the right of self-government to "The People"--and the founders most certainly did not intend for any corporation to be embraced within that term. Both national and state lawmakers abhorred and feared the rise of raw corporate power, and they went out of their way not only to declare these business structures a perpetual threat to democracy, but also to ensure that the corporate reach was strictly limited.

Thomas Jefferson bluntly declared in 1816 the need to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." His was a common view, for leaders at the time knew that corporations are inherently antidemocratic artifices of the wealthy elite, allowing controlling investors to do two dangerous things: (1) amass far more money than other interests can muster and use it to elevate their private interest above the common good; and (2) absolve investors of any personal responsibility for the damage done by their corporations.

These hierarchical, autocratic, profit-seeking entities are created by state-issued charters. Today, the charters are handed out with few questions asked, but in our nation's first 70 years or so, they were hard to get. To be chartered a corporation:

Had to have a public purpose. If it failed to adhere to this purpose, the state yanked its charter and the corporation was dissolved.

Was limited in what business it could pursue, was not allowed to buy other corporations, and could amass only a specified level of capital.

Faced term limits, with charters usually expiring after 20 years, requiring investors to apply to the legislature for charter renewal.

Had to treat farmers, small businesses, and other suppliers fairly.

Was strictly prohibited from lobbying or playing any role in political campaigns.

One fundamental point was established from the outset: a corporation is not a person. The people in a corporation (shareholders, management, workers) have the inalienable rights of citizens--they vote, participate in campaigns (give money, volunteer, run for office), serve in government, speak, and assemble. But the corporation itself--an inanimate object--can't. People breathe, think, ponder their souls, and can be put in jail. A corporation can't. It is a paper construct, an artificial being--a thingamajig.

Yes, governments can (and do) bestow privileges on the thingamajig, but it is absurd to assert--as Roberts appears to be doing--that the thingamajig has the same rights as humans, and therefore cannot be prevented by elected governments from dumping its treasury into our elections.

In fact, the Supreme Court itself has ruled down through history that corporations are indeed subject to whatever restrictions the People choose to put on them. Here are a few of the Court's pronouncements that the Roberts Five would summarily reject:

[A corporation is a] mere legal entity...not a citizen." -- Bank of the US v. Deveaux, 1809

"[A corporation is a] mere creature of law [that] possesses only those properties which the charter confers upon it." -- Chief Justice John Marshall Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819

"[A corporation is] an artificial being...existing only in contemplation of law [and created only for such] objects as the government wishes to promote." -- Dartmouth College

"The only rights [a corporation] can claim are the rights which are given to it in that character, and not the rights which belong to its members as citizens of a state..." -- Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 1839

"The liberty referred to in that [Fourteenth] Amendment is the liberty of natural, not artificial persons." -- Northwestern National Live Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 1906

"Neither the history nor the l anguage of the Fourteenth Amendment justifies the belief that corporations are included within its protections." -- Conn. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 1938

"It has been settled that corporations are not entitled to all of the constitutional protections which private individuals have..." -- Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 1946

"It cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons..."

"It is thus an accepted part of the business landscape in this country for states to create corporations, to prescribe their powers, and to define the rights that are acquired by purchasing their shares." -- First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978

"The unique state-conferred corporate structure that facilitates the amassing of large treasuries warrants the limit on independent expenditures." -- Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990

"[Restricting corporate] electioneering communications [is based on] legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation." -- McConnell v. FEC, 2003

Whose money is it?

Corporations are different from you and me (beyond the obvious fact that they don't happen to be alive). When it comes to having a right to spend money in election campaigns, two intrinsic, structural realities disqualify the corporate entity from its claim to be just another group of concerned citizens.

First, the money that executives would disburse from the corporate treasury does not belong to them. When citizens (i.e., real people, including the many individuals involved in the corporate entity) put up money to support or oppose candidates, they're drawing from their own pockets. But executives who would direct political spending from the "corporate person" would be using funds that are not theirs.

Corporations aggregate massive sums of money from shareholders (including pension funds), as well as from lenders, consumers, and even employees who make financial concessions to management. Collectively, these funds come from millions of people who have widely differing political opinions and goals. None of them put their money into the corporate coffers for political use, and none meant for this money to be treated as an endorsement of the corporation's political ideas. For executives to divert any of this wealth into campaigns without the knowledge and okay of those who put up the money is unethical, amounting to fraud and theft.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_United

Citizens United was created in November 1988 by conservative activist Floyd G. Brown,[1] It is "a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Virginia and tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code."[2] Citizens United is affiliated with The Presidential Coalition, a 501(c)(4), and the 2007 Conservative Victory Committee, a Section 527 political action committee. Previously, it was affiliated with the National Security Political Action Committee (National Security PAC), Presidential Victory Committee and Americans for Bush. Citizens United is led by David Bossie, who has served as president since 2000. Its offices are on Pennsylvania Avenue in the Capitol hill area of Washington, D.C.

Contents

[hide]

1 History

2 Controversies

3 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

3.1 Movies

3.1.1 Opposition to Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton

3.1.2 Opposition to Presidential Candidate John Kerry and to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"

3.1.3 Opposition to the ACLU

3.1.4 Opposition to the United Nations

3.1.5 Role in Anti-Immigration Campaigns

3.1.6 Other Movies

3.2 Television Ads

3.3 Donatelli Group and the Swift Boat connection

4 Projects and affiliated programs

4.1 American Sovereignty Action Project (ASAP)

4.2 Boycott France

4.3 Center for Government Integrity (CGI)

4.4 Citizens United for the Bush Agenda (CUBA)

4.5 Citizens United Foundation

4.6 Citizens United Political Victory Fund (CU-PVF)

4.7 Counter George Soros

4.8 National Citizens Legal Network (NCLN)

4.9 National Committee for Faith and Family (NCFF)

4.10 "Taxpayers Defense Committee"

5 Legal Briefs

6 "Policy Papers"

7 Mailing List Issue

8 Official Mission Statement

9 Officers and Board of Directors

10 Registration and financial information

11 Contact information

12 Articles and resources

12.1 Related SourceWatch articles

12.2 References

12.3 External resources

12.4 External articles

12.4.1 2009

12.4.2 2008

12.4.3 2007

12.4.4 2006

12.4.5 2005

12.4.6 2004

12.4.7 2003

12.4.8 2002

History

Citizens United was founded by Floyd Brown[3] in 1988.

Controversies

Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In January, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a divided 5-4 vote, held that section 441b of the 2002 McCain-Feingold federal campaign finance law (Bipartisan Campaign Reform) was unconstitutional. The law prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for "electioneering communication," or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.

The ruling effectively protected corporate speech the same as individual speech. The majority’s ruling about corporate electioneering marked a dramatic break from the past. In doing so, the Court rejected a century of previous court decisions that ruled corporate donations can, and should be regulated. In its ruling, the court never explained why corporate identity demands the same treatment as individual identity.[4]

Movies

Opposition to Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton

By far to date, Citizens United's biggest controversy surrounds its efforts to influence the 2008 presidential elections through "Hillary: The Movie."[5] A federal court ruled that "Citizens United could not run ads for its negative film on Hillary Rodham Clinton without disclosing the ad’s donors. The group wants to release and promote 'Hillary: The Movie' to coincide with the dates when many states will hold primary elections, but the court found that in order for the ads to adhere to current campaign finance law, Citizens United would have to disclose who paid for the ads."[6] The group has appealed this case all the way to the Supreme Court. For more information about the legal arguments in that case and its implications for individual rights in a democracy as compared with corporate rights, see Portal:Corporate_Rights

Opposition to Presidential Candidate John Kerry and to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"

In September 2004, "Fred Thompson, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Michael Medved, Michael Barone and Bill Sammon among other Washington veterans" were featured in Citizens United's film , "Celsius 41.11."[7] This movie purported to "[counter] the lies and deceptions of Fahrenheit 9/11 and [provide] a full deconstruction of Senator John Kerry, the Democrat presidential nominee."[8]

In June 2004, Citizens United also joined the right-wing campaign to block distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11, by filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, claiming that the movie violated federal election law.[9]

Opposition to the ACLU

Citizen United produced ACLU: At War With America. The film featured "Michael Boos, Mark Corallo, Former Congressman John Hostettler, Michael Medved, Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Deroy Murdock, U.S. Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, Michael Reagan, Alan Sears, Mathew Staver and Victoria Toensing."[10][11]

Opposition to the United Nations

Citizen United produced: Broken Promises: The United Nations at 60.[12]

Role in Anti-Immigration Campaigns

Citizens United produced Border War: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration[13]

Other Movies

Blocking "The Path to 9/11"

'HYPE The Obama Effect

Rediscovering God in America

Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny

We Have the Power

Perfect Valor

Rediscovering God in America, Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny, and We Have the Power were hosted by Newt Gingrich.

Television Ads

The group has run ads against Democratic candidates and in favor of Republican policies. For example:

Citizens United Launches New Television Ad Against Senator John Kerry "Man of the People".

In March 2003, Citizens United "launched a national ad campaign supporting Bush's hard-charging approach to Baghdad," with Fred Thompson as the "face" for the anti-war "counter movement."[14]

Alex Castellanos'[15] National Media, Inc. "produced ads that ran in February and March 2003, supporting the war in Iraq and supporting the troops."[16]

The Strategy Group for Media is connected with Citizens United PAC[17] through Brian J. Berry[18], who is a member of the Citizens United board of directors.[19] The Strategy Group produced an ad criticizing John Kerry.[20]

However, the group did produce a television advertisement that revealed supposedly "liberal" legislative actions taken by then Presidential candidate Senator John McCain.[21] The Group aired the ad on Fox News Channel.[2] But the relative amount of funding spent on this as compared with other efforts could be viewed as window dressing and certainly does not make their criticism "bipartisan."

Donatelli Group and the Swift Boat connection

The Citizens United online store is operated through DonationReport.com, plus an extension code for Citizens United.[22]

The connection for the DonationReport.com website[23] arrives at a Login[24]—requiring both a User ID and Password—which belongs to eDonation.com, a member of The Donatelli Group, a fundraising company that has raised campaign funds for the Republican National Committee, Republican National Convention, Bush-Cheney '04 Inc., John McCain, the NRA[25] and an exhaustive list of Republican members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as other political organizations.[26]

The Donatelli Group, using its "primary segment" Campaign Solutions[27], is associated with Creative Response Concepts, the public relations firm that advised Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the "organization that accused Kerry of inflating his Vietnam War record" during the 2004 presidential campaign.

The Donatelli Group, which produced the RNC website[28], also created the SWIFTBOATVETSFORTRUTH.ORG website July 30, 2004, with Connell Donatelli Inc.[29] (a.k.a. The Donatelli Group) as Registrant. Connell Donatelli Inc. was also listed as both Administrator and the Tech Organization for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website.[30]

Projects and affiliated programs

American Sovereignty Action Project (ASAP)

This is also known as the American Sovereignty Project (ASP).

Boycott France

See the Citizens United website.[31]

Center for Government Integrity (CGI)

Citizens United for the Bush Agenda (CUBA)

Citizens United Foundation

Citizens United Political Victory Fund (CU-PVF)

CU-PVF is Citizens United's political action committee.

Counter George Soros

See the Citizens United website.[32]

National Citizens Legal Network (NCLN)

National Committee for Faith and Family (NCFF)

"Taxpayers Defense Committee"

In 1993, the Taxpayers Defense Committee was a "joint project of the Citizens United and the Conservative Victory Committee."[33]

Legal Briefs

See "Courtroom Advocacy: A Listing of Filed Legal Briefs":[34] See also SourceWatch's Corporate Rights portal for more information on the legal briefs filed in the Supreme Court case over "Hillary: The Movie."

Citizens United also filed briefs in the following controversies, among others:

Amicus Curiae Brief supporting Vice-President Dick Cheney in the GAO's lawsuit (Walker v. Cheney)

Amicus Brief opposing the Illinois Attorney General's attempt to dictate or othewise restrict the content of non-profit organization communications (Ryan v. Telemarketing Associates)

"Policy Papers"

See "Policy Papers".[35]

Mailing List Issue

Response Unlimited lists Citizens United for the Bush Agenda, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition on a mailing list used for "Reagan Republicans for the New Millennium" Donors".[36][37]

An Eagle List Company list for USA Next Donors (United Seniors Association Donors) updated January 21, 2007, listed the Citizens United for the Bush Agenda among users for the "past six months".[38]

Campaign donors for 2000 presidential hopeful Steve Forbes listed by the Eagle List Company included Citizens United and the American Sovereignty Project.[39]

Official Mission Statement

Citizens United logo

Citizens United describes itself as "an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding father's vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens," its website states.[40]

Officers and Board of Directors

Also see Officers and Board of Directors:[41]

David N. Bossie, President, Citizens United & Citizens United Foundation, Burtonsville, Maryland

Michael Boos, Vice President & General Counsel & Director of Citizens United American Sovereignty Action Project, Manassas, Virginia

Floyd G. Brown, Chairman of the Board; Executive Director, The Reagan Ranch & Young America's Foundation, Santa Barbara, California

Brian J. Berry, Director; Media Consultant, Austin, Texas

Douglas L. Ramsey, Secretary-Treasurer, Seattle, Washington

Ron Robinson, Director[42][43]; President, Young America's Foundation, Reston, Virginia[44]

Bob Barr, Congressman and Honorary Chairman

Registration and financial information

A disclaimer at the bottom of the Citizens United online store page[45] states:

"Information concerning Citizens United's registration and financial information can be obtained from the following: Florida Division of Consumer Services by calling within the state 1-800-help-fla, reg. No. SC-04837, 100% of contributions are received by the organization; documents and information submitted under Maryland's charitable solicitation act are available, for the cost of postage and copies, for the Maryland Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401, (410) 974-5534; Mississippi Secretary of State's Office by calling 1-888-236-6167; Attorney General of the State of New Jersey by calling 973-504-6215; New York State Attorney General, Charities Bureau, 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271; North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State, solicitation licensing section, 919-807-2214; Pennsylvania Department of State, or by calling, from within Pennsylvania, 800-732-0999; Virginia Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs; Secretary of State (State Washington) by calling 1-800-332-4483; West Virginia Secretary of State, State Capitol, Charleston, VA 24305; or by contacting Citizens United, 109 Carpenter Drive, suite 210, Sterling, VA 20164. Registration with a government agency does not imply endorsement by that agency."

Contact information

1006 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20003

Phone: 202 547-5420

Toll-Free: 800 362-4788

FAX: 202 547-5421

Website: http://www.citizensunited.org/

Weblog: http://www.citizensunited.org/blog/

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

Donatelli Group

Internet activism

MoveOn

New World Order

U.S. congressional elections in 2006

U.S. congressional elections in 2008

U.S. presidential election, 2004

U.S. presidential election, 2004: Campaign Ads

U.S. presidential election, 2004: Republican Campaign Ads

U.S. presidential election, 2008

References

? Black Max, "This Far and No Further. A Timeline of Events Surrounding the Radical Right's Attempt to Subvert American Democracy," IraqTimeline.com for 1988.

? Declaration of Michael Boos, on Behalf of Plaintiffs Citizens United and Citizens United Political Victory Fund, Congressman Ron Paul, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Federal Election Commission, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 02-CV-781, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, October 3, 2002.

? Floyd Brown - Biography

? The Daily Star The court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Excerpts of the decision. January 28, 2010

? HillaryMovie.com website.

? "Some Movie Ads Require Disclosure," CQ's MoneyLine, January 15, 2008.

? Celsius4111.com

? "Citizens United to Premiere 'Celsius 41.11 - the Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die'; Documentary Challenges Lies in 'Fahrenheit 9/11', Deconstructs John Kerry," Business Wire (FindArticles.com), September 16, 2004.

? Susan Jones, "Michael Moore Film Violates Campaign Finance Law, Group Alleges," (formerly Conservative News Service; now Cybercast News Service), June 23, 2004.

? ACLUMovie.com.

? ACLUMovie.com website.

? BrokenPromisesMovie.com.

? BorderWarMovie.com.

? Liza Porteus, "'Pro-War' Movement Springs Into Action," Fox News, March 2, 2003. Note: Thompson is promoting the Bush administration's position in his ad. See The alleged linkage of Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction.

? Selected Affiliations: Alex Castellanos, The Stealth PACs/Public Citizen, accessed July 3, 2007.

? Principals and Consultants, Past and Present of Citizens United (CU), The Stealth PACs/Public Citizen, accessed July 3, 2007.

? Our Clients, The Strategy Group for Media, accessed July 3, 2007.

? gregflynn, "AZ-08,CO-07,IA-01,IN-02,IN-08,IN-09,KY-04,NC-11,NM-01," MyDD, October 12, 2006.

? About, Citizens United, accessed July 3, 2007.

? Principals and Consultants, Past and Present of Citizens United (CU), The Stealth PACs/Public Citizen, accessed July 3, 2007.

? [1]

? DonationReport.com processing center, accessed July 3, 2007.

? DonationReport.com website.

? Login page, DonationReport.com.

? Erin McPike, "Two Republican Web Giants Form Connell Donatelli Inc.," CampaignLine.com, August 20, 2004.

? Clients, CampaignSolutions.com.

? edonation.com website

? "Information on the RNC Organizers," OnePeoplesProject.com, last updated August 29, 2004; accessed July 3, 2007.

? ConnellDonatelli.com website.

? "Re: Bush, O'Neill, Swifties and Purple Heart Band-aids," Mailgate, September 11, 2004; accessed July 3, 2007.

? Boycott France, Citizens United website.

? Counter Soros, Citizens United website.

? Michael Clark, "Selling issues - political consultants," Campaigns & Elections (FindArticles.com), April-May 1993. See page 4.

? Courtroom, Citizens United website.

? Policy Papers, Citizens United website.

? Usage for REAGAN REPUBLICANS OF THE NEW MILLENIUM DONORS, Response Unlimited, accessed July 3, 2007.

? According Vickie Koth of Christian Freedom International, "three lists we tested that all bombed. Our current donors are quite faithful, but in terms of new prospects, the lists we tried (Nora Lam, Alan Keyes, and Reagan Republicans of the New Millennium) did not pan out," Mike Buwalda of the Christian Stewardship Association wrote May 2007 in "Top 10 'Appeal Letter' Lessons from Christian Nonprofits."

? USA Next Donors, Eagle List Company, accessed July 3, 2007.

? Forbes 2000 Campaign Donors, Eagle List Company, revised January 21, 2007.

? Citizens United website.

? Officers and Board of Directors, Citizens United website.

? Ron Robinson, ReaganRanch.com.

? Profile: Ron Robinson, CNP.

? Profile: Ron Robinson, Young America's Foundation.

? DonationReport.com processing center, accessed July 3, 2007.

External resources

Citizens United, NNDB.com.

See "Clinton, Conspiracism, and the Continuing Culture War," American Spectator (The Public Eye), 1998: "Citizens United is an example of how the players and themes in conspiracist anticommunism shifted seamlessly to conspiracist antiliberalism and joined the campaign against a demonized Clinton, pulling their conspiracy theories into the mainstream media and Congress." Includes background information on Bossie, Boos, Brown, and other key players in Citizens United.

External articles

2009

Adam Liptak, Supreme Court to Revisit Hillary Documentary, New York Times, August 29, 2009.

See also numerous articles about the Supreme Court case listed at Portal:Corporate_Rights.

2008

John Eggerton, "Boehner, Conservative Groups Weigh In on Localism: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin Hears from Rep. John Boehner, Americans for Tax Reform, Christian Coalition, Citizens United," Broadcasting & Cable, June 13, 2008.

"Anti-Obama DVD Distributed in Swing States -- By Top Newspapers," Associated Press, October 28, 2008.

William Triplett, "Anti-Clinton docu goes back to court: High court will hear 'Hillary' producers' appeal," Variety, November 14, 2008.

Adam Liptak, "Justices Agree to Hear Case on Anti-Clinton Film", New York Times, November 14, 2008.

2007

Fred Lucas, "Critical Documentary on Hillary Clinton Set for Fall Release," Cybercast News Service, February 9, 2007.

Jonathan Rick, "Citizens United Files Brief in Landmark Campaign-Finance Case," The Conservative Voice, March 26, 2007.

"Newt Gingrich & Citizen's United Lash Out at Amnesty Bill," Gateway Pundit Blogspot, June 21, 2007.

Quin Hillyer, "Re-Post: Gingrich vs. Amnesty," AmSpec Blog/The American Spectator, June 25, 2007. See Gingrich/Bossie ad.

Citizens United, The New Stealth PACS/Public Citizen, accessed June 28, 2007.

2006

Stephen Manfredi, "Dick Morris and David Bossie Unveil New 'Wiretap' Ad: Dem Weakness in Fighting Terrorism," Citizens United (Free Republic), October 30, 2006.

2005

"Hollywood Vandals Brand Bush a Nazi," Human Events Online, February 18, 2005.

Meghan Clyne, "U.N. Naysayers Greet 60th Anniversary With Biting Documentary," New York Sun, September 7, 2005.

2004

Liz Sidoti, "'Priceless' parody ad singes Kerry on lifestyle," Associated Press (Boston Globe), March 9, 2004: "A conservative group headed by one of former President Clinton's harshest critics is airing an ad that pokes fun at presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry's haircut, designer clothing and property holdings. ... Citizens United, headed by former Republican congressional aide David Bossie, began airing the ad—a parody of MasterCard's 'priceless'." commercials—on cable and broadcast channels Sunday in select presidential battleground states."

"US group unveils Kerry attack ads. A US conservative group has released a series of television advertisements criticising US Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry," BBC, March 9, 2004: "The ads, paid for by a group called Citizens United, condemn Mr. Kerry as a 'rich liberal elitist'. ... The advertisements ran in select states over the weekend but went nationwide across the US on Monday."

"Citizens United Ad May Run During 60 Minutes; Ad Seems to Violate CBS's Policy Against 'Advocacy Advertising'," Media Matters for America, June 18, 2004.

"CBS to air new 'anti-Clinton ad'?; Citizens United ad would apparently violate CBS's stated policy not to run 'advocacy' ads on 'controversial issues of public importance'," Media Matters for America, June 18, 2004.

John Gorenfeld, "Michael Moore Terrorizes the Bushies," Salon, June 23, 2004.

"Citizens United ad got free air time on FOX," Media Matters for America, June 23, 2004.

Steve Gorman, "U.S. Panel Dismisses 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Complaint," Reuters, August 6, 2004. The Federal Election Commission unanimously rejects CU's complaint against Fahrenheit 9/11, which sought to end advertising for the movie after July 30.

Sharon Theimer, "Anti-Kerry group seeks press exemption," Associated Press, August 5, 2004. CU asks the Federal Election Commission for a media exemption, so that it can run election-time ads for an anti-John Kerry book and anti-Kerry and John Edwards documentaries.

Joe Conason, "Triumph of the W. Trying to counter the success of Michael Moore, Karl Rove's men in Hollywood are rushing to release a pro-Bush epic, 'The Big Picture.' But are they violating federal campaign law?" Salon, August 20, 2004. re Lionel Chetwynd, "widely known as one of the Bush administration's most fervent advocates in the movie industry".

Dave Neiwert, "Our friends at Citizens United," Orcinus Blogspot, August 21, 2004.

Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinion Number 2004-30; Letter from Federal Election Commission to Citizens United, September 10, 2004.

Editorial: "Calling All Book-Burners," New York Post (Free Republic), September 26, 2004.

"New Anti-Michael Moore Film Features Ripped-Off Music," Cosmic Iguana Blog, October 26, 2004.

2003

Liza Porteus, "'Pro-War' Movement Springs Into Action," Fox News, March 2, 2003.

Nat Ives, "MTV Refuses Antiwar Commercial," New York Times, March 13, 2003: "Supporters of an invasion of Iraq have seen doors slammed on them as well. ... The Citizens United Foundation, a group that ran commercials in 1991 supporting the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, made its own commercial supporting President Bush and a possible war in Iraq. Starring Fred Thompson, a former Republican Senator and an actor now appearing on 'Law & Order,' the spot was produced to counter the celebrity factor of the Martin Sheen [anti-war] spot and others from the antiwar camp."

2002

William Hughes, "Warmongering on the D.C. Mall," artbabyart.com, 2002.

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_United"

Categories: Politics (U.S.) | Elections (U.S.) | Political dirty tricks | Civil liberties (U.S.) | Corporate Rights

slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2242208

http://www.slate.com/id/2242209/pagenum/all/#p2

The Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform.

By Richard L. HasenPosted Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010, at 12:58 PM ET

The Supreme CourtIt is time for everyone to drop all the talk about the Roberts court's "judicial minimalism," with Chief Justice Roberts as an "umpire" who just calls balls and strikes. Make no mistake, this is an activist court that is well on its way to recrafting constitutional law in its image. The best example of that is this morning's transformative opinion in Citizens United v. FEC. Today the court struck down decades-old limits on corporate and union spending in elections (including judicial elections) and opened up our political system to a money free-for-all.

Back in June, I explained http://www.slate.com/id/2221753/ to Slate readers the basics of this case. Citizens United is an ideological group, like the NRA or Planned Parenthood, except that it takes for-profit corporate funding. It produced an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary. The group wanted to air the documentary during the 2008 presidential primary season through a cable television video-on-demand service and to advertise for it on television. In exchange for a $1.2 million fee, a cable-television-operator consortium would have made the documentary available to subscribers to download free on demand. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law passed in 2002 bars certain corporate-funded television broadcasts, such as this documentary, in the 60 days before a general election (or the 30 days before a primary). And the law requires disclosure by the funders of election-related broadcast advertising, such as these ads. Citizens United argued against the corporate-spending ban.

Citizens United's broadest argument was that the court should overrule its 1990 case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld limits on corporate spending in candidate elections. Before argument, I expected the court to take a different course by deciding this case narrowly. The court could have done that by saying that McCain-Feingold's statutory rules barring corporate-funded television broadcasts don't apply to video-on-demand broadcasts. That would be in line with some of the past decisions of the Roberts court, when it had preferred to chip away at existing precedent rather than dramatically move the law rightward. But, as Dahlia Lithwick explained, at oral argument the government's lawyer got into some trouble in suggesting that the government would have the constitutional power to ban corporate-published books just before the election. The exchange made it seem like the court could well be poised to overrule Austin

All bets were off at the end of the last term, when the court announced the case would be rescheduled for a second round of oral argument last September specifically to reconsider the overruling of Austin case and a second case, McConnell. We've been waiting ever since.

Today Justice Kennedy wrote for a court majority of the five conservative justices. He effectively wiped out a key provision of Congress' 2002 campaign finance reform. He also did indeed strike down Austin and parts of McConnell. To Justice Kennedy, any limits on the independent spending of money in elections smack of government censorship. The limits Congress enacted in 2002 remind him of old English laws requiring licensing for speech. He talked about the byzantine sets of federal laws and regulations involved—genuinely confusing, it's true—and said that none of it was permissible under the First Amendment. He talked of the rise of the Internet and blogs and how the government could soon come in and start regulating political blogging if the court did not step in.

Though the decision deals with federal elections, expect state and local corporate and union spending limits to be challenged, and to fall, throughout the country. There are many responses to Justice Kennedy's reasoning. He wrongly assumes that corporations or unions can throw money at public officials without corrupting them. Could a candidate for judicial office, for example, be swayed to rule in favor of a contributor who donated $3 million to an independent campaign to get the candidate elected to the state supreme court? Justice Kennedy himself thought so in last year's Caperton case. And yet he runs away from that decision in today's ruling. Justice Kennedy acknowledges that with the "soft money" limits on political parties still in place, third-party groups (which tend to run more negative and irresponsible ads) will increase in strength relative to political parties. And that possibility raises the real chance Congress will repeal the "soft money" limits, thereby increasing the risks of quid pro quo corruption.

There's more to criticize in the opinion. Should the American people, through Congress, be able to decide that the vast economic inequality that comes with our wonderful capitalist system should not translate into vast political inequality? Justice Kennedy seems to believe that this would lead to the imminent decline of our democracy. Money is speech; speech may not be suppressed. But the last time I checked, the U.K. and Canada were vibrant, functioning democracies, despite the far more stringent limits they place on spending in their elections. Finally, Justice Kennedy's single horrible—his specter of blog censorship—sounds more like the rantings of a right-wing talk show host than the rational view of a justice with a sense of political realism.

What is so striking today is how avoidable this political tsunami was. The court has long adhered to a doctrine of "constitutional avoidance," by which it avoids deciding tough constitutional questions when there is a plausible way to make a narrower ruling based on a plain old statute. That's what the court did in last term's voting-rights case—in fact, going so far as to adopt an implausible statutory interpretation to avoid overturning a crown jewel of the civil rights movement.

What we have in Citizens United is anti-avoidance. Kennedy's majority had to go out and grab this one. Justice Stevens' dissent lists three ways the majority could have skirted the constitutional question. One of them would have been to say that McCain-Feingold does not apply to video-on-demand. This and the Stevens' other options are all plausible interpretations, certainly more plausible than the tricky footwork in the voting rights case. Instead, here the court went out of its way to overturn its own precedent, in violation of its usual rule of stare decisis, which calls for respecting past rulings for the good of reliable law-making. And it did so violating its usual rule, which it cited even yesterday, that it does not generally reach issues not raised in the initial petition to the court.

In short, the court did not have to do what it did today. The chief justice issued a brief concurrence apparently solely to defend himself (and Justice Alito, who signed it) against charges of judicial activism. Roberts wrote that the alternative interpretations were not plausible, and that exceptions to stare decisis apply. Opponents of the decision today are likely to be unconvinced. This is a court that has taken a giant leap toward deregulation of the electoral process.

It left in place one requirement: that the corporate and union groups unleashing the attack ads have to disclose who they are (and for that, Kennedy had everyone's vote but Justice Thomas'.) But given the history of money and elections, why should we think that disclosure alone will be enough to deal with the problems of corruption and inequality that threaten our government? I have my doubts. But I'm sure this is a bad day for American democracy.

REVERSED in a 5-4 decision with an opinion written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

newcomplex

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/citizens-united-anniversary-money-politics

AT&T's "personal" rights, campaign donations from China, and other absurdities one year after Citizens United.

— By Andy Kroll

Fri Jan. 21, 2011 3:00 AM PST

A year ago today, the Supreme Court handed down its game-changing decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The 5-4 ruling threw out decades of limitations on the amount of cash corporations and unions could spend to influence elections. Arguing that those limitations curtailed the First Amendment rights of corporations and unions, the majority of the high court effectively opened the campaign-cash spigot to its maximum setting, enabling a spending free-for-all.

Outside donors, most of them anonymous, dumped almost $300 million into last year's midterms. Among them were rich individuals, such as housing titan and GOP benefactor Bob Perry, and corporations and unions, like Dow Chemical and the AFL-CIO.

So where do we stand 365 days later? How dramatically has Citizens United altered the way our leaders get elected? And can we expect more changes to campaign finance law in its wake?

It was the post-Citizens United political playing field that defined the 2010 midterm elections. Shadowy groups like Karl Rove's American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, American Action Network, and Commonsense Ten sprung up to capitalize on the new ground rules. The rush of outside spending came mostly from the right, which outspent the left by more than a two-to-one average, $191 million to $94 million.

Only after they'd conceded 63 House seats and six Senate seats did Democrats and liberal organizations grasp how much power these independent spending groups had been handed.

...The Sunlight Foundation explains:

Under IRS rules, a corporation that wants to hide the donors to its election activities and still maintain its tax-exempt status cannot have the election of candidates as its "primary purpose." So it must spend more on "education" or issue ads than it spends on electioneering communications. That means, for example, that in order to keep its tax-exempt status, Karl Rove brainchild Crossroads GPS, which spent $17 million on campaign ads on the November elections, must now spend at least twice that on issue ads.

Whether Rove's outfit and others like it can prove they're not entirely political creatures will be one of the most closely watched issues in Citizens United's aftermath.

Not to be overlooked are the legal aftershocks of the case. The Supreme Court is now contemplating the corporation-as-person issue, raised so famously in Citizens United, in a case where telecommunications giant AT&T aims to prevent the federal government from obtaining company information under the Freedom of Information Act.

The act exempts the release of information that would violate "personal privacy," and AT&T claims the government's request would do just that, though most people would hardly call AT&T a "person." As US Solicitor General Neil Katyal put it, "A corporation itself can no more be embarrassed, harassed, or stigmatized than a stone." But in the wake of Citizens United, outsiders wait nervously to see how the Supreme Court takes on "corporate personhood" this time.

Post-Citizens United legal battles could also chip away at the campaign-finance laws left standing. In one ongoing suit, two foreign nationals—in this case, Canadian citizens living in the US—are challenging the so-called Alien Gag law, a part of the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 that prevents foreign nationals or sovereign-wealth funds from donating to American political campaigns. In short, it's what prevents China from directly influencing American elections. On January 13, a federal judge ruled that two plaintiffs had the right to challenge the act. And while Fred Wertheimer, who runs the reform group Democracy 21, says the challenge isn't much cause for concern, he adds, "I'm not predicting anything."

Also on the Supreme Court's to-do list is Davis v. Federal Election Commission, a case involving Arizona's public-trigger mechanism—the point at which a publicly financed candidate receives additional funds. Conservatives argue that these mechanisms, which kick in when the war chest of the candidate's privately financed opponent surpasses certain thresholds, stifle free speech.

What worries reform advocates is that the Davis case could be used to scrap public campaign financing altogether. Wertheimer, an avowed supporter of publically financed elections, says he doubts the high court would overturn Buckley v. Valeo, its 1976 decision allowing public financing, but "always, given Citizens United, we live to wait and see what this [Supreme Court] is going to do."