It’s Well Past Time to FIX our Citizens United Problem

— by Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary for President Bill Clinton

The Supreme Court, which hears oral arguments today and tomorrow on same-sex marriage, has become the nation’s de facto decider of social policy. The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, whose monetary policy is pumping $83 billion into the economy every month to keep long-term interest rates down, has become the nation’s de facto decider of economic policy. And the Department of Defense, now in the twelfth year of an undeclared war on terror, has become the nation’s de facto decider of foreign policy. As politics becomes inundated with big money and paralyzed by partisanship, key government functions are being parceled out to entities having little or no accountability to the public, and whose decisions are far removed from public scrutiny. Future historians may well ask: What happened to American democracy?

Whatever issue you may be most concerned about — climate change, widening inequality, declining real median wages, rising poverty among the young, the soaring costs of healthcare, bailouts for Wall Street, the sprawling military-industrial-congressional complex, the morality brigade that wants to dictate who can marry and whether a woman has control over her body, a government captured by corporations and the wealthy — nothing can be done until we get big money out of politics and reclaim our democracy. It is the first step to all reform. It’s difficult, it’s frustrating, it’s not sexy — but it’s a necessity.

And where do we begin on this arduous task? How do we choose between getting behind a constitutional amendment to reverse “Citizen’s United,” or public financing of major federal and state elections, or requiring all media using public airwaves or cables to provide free advertising to candidates, or fighting against gerrymandering at the state level? What’s most important? All of it, and more. When I’m not spouting off about the problems of our economy and democracy I chair a citizen’s group called “Common Cause,” which is leading the charge on these issues nationally and in many states. At the very least, I urge you to join up and get involved. (I’ll provide you with the link in a later post, in a moment.) Complaining is easy, and it may be even therapeutic. Rolling up your sleeves and doing something about all this is much harder — but, in my view, the most important thing you can do as a citizen.

Related articles

• Congressmen Propose Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United (progressillinois.com)
• Citizens United Constitutional Amendment (Huffington Post)
• Overturning Citizens United: Is a Constitutional Amendment the Best Path to Limit Dark Money? (Democracy Now)
• Review of Constitutional Amendments Proposed in Response to Citizens’ United (League of Women Voters)
• Five Constitutional Amendments That Could Overturn Citizens United – How Are They Different? (International Business Times)

Finally Confirmed: GOP ‘IS’ Out of Touch

GOP Report Shows Party is Out of Touch With Americans on Threats to Democracy: Money in Politics and Voter Suppression

The Republican National Committee released a report today reviewing its losses in the 2012 election cycle and laying out a roadmap for the future of the party.  People For the American Way Vice President Marge Baker released the following statement:

“This report highlights what we already knew: that the Republican party is out of touch with America. Instead of addressing the party’s anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-worker policies that voters resoundingly rejected in 2012, today’s report calls for a complete gutting of campaign finance reform – in essence calling for even more big money to be poured into our elections.  If the Republican party were listening to Americans, they would know that the country supports finding systemic solutions to the problem of unregulated money in our political system.  The answer is certainly not to gut the regulations we already have in place.  Instead, we need to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC and related cases so that we can create more effective regulations to get big money out of our democracy.

“The GOP report’s recommendations on voting rights also underscore a continuing focus on keeping certain voters from the polls.  After an election cycle overflowing with examples of discriminatory voter suppression efforts aimed at historically disenfranchised communities, the report recommends an ongoing focus on so-called  ‘ballot security training initiatives.’  This is simply another phrase for the same voter intimidation tactics used in the name of preventing supposed ‘voter fraud.’  It’s baffling that the GOP thinks it can improve its image with people of color while still working to block their access to the ballot box.

“This report is yet another example that the GOP’s ‘soul-searching’ hasn’t gotten them very far.  It’s time to refocus our efforts on getting the big money out of elections and the voters into the voting booth.”

Ready to go?

Just exactly how much lipstick have they purchased?  Maybeline and Revlon combined couldn’t make enough lipstick to take care of that pachyderm.

Yesterday— the Republican National Committee released its wide-ranging “autopsy” report called the “Growth And Opportunity Project Report.” In it, the party admits to several shortcomings that contributed to the party’s wide losses in the 2012 election. A portion of the report includes market research from voter focus groups around the country. Not surprisingly, when asked to describe Republicans, respondents said that the party was “scary,” “narrow-minded,” “out of touch,” and full of “stuffy old men.”  What’s most interesting is that the report failed to quantify just how out of touch their party has become on a number of issues, from climate change, to marriage equality, to universal background checks, to women’s rights, to the minimum wage, and more.

The GOP thinks they merely have a messaging problem … and just need to change a few words they used to talk about things.  HAH! Now that’s a joke and a half.  Maybe they should look at their 2012 Platform. Better yet, maybe they should look at what is happening in State Legislatures and what members of their party have introduced in the Congress:

• Restricting access to or insurance reimbursement of costs associated with an abortion;
• Restricting time frames in which a woman could seek an abortion to 12-weeks and in on case, to 6-weeks from conception;
• Mandating the use of transvaginal ultrasounds and other medically unnecessary procedures as a means to shame women;
• Gleefully and gloatingly defunding Planned Parenthood;
• Attempting to elevate “religious” rights above all others to allow zealots to assert their religious rights to deny all types of service and/or medications should it offend “their” personal religious beliefs, making their beliefs superior to yours;
• Continually attempting to repeal Obamacare and providing NO replacement;
• Promoting continued systemic discrimination against the LGBT community, as a whole, via marriage inequality espoused throughout our Nation’s income tax and estate tax structures;
• Attempting to enact one voter suppression tactic after another to disenfranchise voters as well as restricting early voting opportunities;
• Continually filibustering one bill after another, even those introduced by Republicans;
• Blocking Consumer Financial Protection and making multiple attempts to repeal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform;
• Promoting racial profiling as a means of harassment to convince Hispanics to “self-deport’ ;
• Promoting Personhood for embryos and essentially demoting women’s status to nothing more than an incubator;
• Replacing Democracy with Dictatorships (Overseers);
• Promoting fatherhood visitation rights for rapists.

I’m sure I’ve missed of few other big issues we’ve had to overcome … but need I go on?  There’s a politically incorrect term we frequently used when I was in the Navy to define that kind of behavior.  The term stars with “cluster.”  The GOPs (Grouchy Old Patriarchs) problem is much more than a “messaging” problem.  It’s a policy problem and we should cheer them on  in pursuit of their messaging delusion.  It will most certainly shorten their path to minor party status.  We may have a few challenges to overcome in the short run, but we’ll all be much better off in the long run.

Don’t believe me?  See for yourself,  take your pick, click a pic or two.  Read/compare a few — then compare the numbers.

GOP 2012 Platform	GOP Growth Opportunites	2009 Path to Recovery	2010-Better Solutions
2010-Pledge to America	P2P v1.0	P2P v2.0	P2P v3.0

Rights Extended by the Constitution are Rights of Natural Persons Only

As a form of Valentine to the U.S. public, Rep. Richard Nolan [D-MN8], introduced H.J.Res. 29, which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (overturning the Citizens United ruling by) providing that rights extended by the Constitution, are rights of  “natural” persons only:

Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

H.J.Res. 29 has been referred to the Judiciary committee and is facing a serious uphill battle to make it out of committee as  well as to the floor for a vote. From 2011-2013, only 12% of House joint resolutions made it past committee and only 5% were enacted or passed.

Rep. Mark Amodei, our representative to Congress from Nevada’s CD2, sits on the Judiciary committee.  It’s time for us to twitter-mob Amodei with tweets to pass #HJRes29 out of committee and then demand that it receive a vote of the House.  We need to get that Citizens United ruling overturned, and to do that we have to amend the U.S. Constitution.  We can’t do that until we can get an amendment passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification.  Here’s a sample tweet:

@MarkAmodeiNV2 #HJRes29 referred to Judiciary cmtee upon which YOU sit—expect you to work to pass it out of cmtee for vote by House!

Related articles

• Rep. Rick Nolan Sponsors Amendment to Overturn Citizens United (wallstreetonparade.com)

• Report from Feb 11 “We the People Amendment” Press Conference (movetoamend.org)

How to Marry a Corporation

Thanks to the Supreme Court and their Citizen’s United decision – corporations in America are considered people – but it didn’t used to be like this. The first modern corporations began forming the 1880’s – and after realizing the power these corporations had on society and the danger they could pose to our democracy – Congress passed the Tillman Act in 1907 – which outlawed corporations from donating to politicians. But – fast forward a century – and corporations are now donating to politicians without any limits – because the Supreme Court decided to blow up the sensibility of the Tillman Act, and replace it with the mind-boggling idea that corporations are people, and money is speech.

And – if corporations are people – and we follow that logic to its final conclusion – then corporations should be allowed to marry – right? Well – King County, Washington – the county that Seattle is in – followed the Citizen’s United logic and showed how absurd it is – and they issued a marriage license for a living, breathing woman to marry an inanimate, all-powerful corporation. In a beautiful and heartfelt wedding ceremony in King County, Washington – Ms. Angela Marie Vogel married Corporate Person – a Washington State Corporation. The wedding ceremony was attended by roughly 100 guests – and was presided over by Pastor Rich Lang – who presided over a brilliant ceremony that was also brilliant political theatre.

Pastor Lang told the crowd that, “For Angela, dear, sweet victim of corporate propaganda, she has been swept up in a love that knows no boundaries, nor limits, no moral concerns…” Lang went on to say that, “we gather knowing that the love that binds them together will end in the grief and tragedy of Angela’s mortal death, even as Corporate Person lives on, marrying again and again with the adoration and support of shareholders world-wide.” And – finally – at the end of the ceremony – Pastor Lang closed by saying, “In celebration of this merger let us reach deep into our pocketbooks and take out a symbol of that which is most sacred and holy of all – let us show the benevolent power of our Corporate Lords and Master by taking out a $1 dollar bill.”

EXCLUSIVE: NRA Threatens Senators Who Support Campaign Finance Disclosure

— By Josh Israel on Jul 13, 2012 at 11:19 am

In a letter opposing the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 — a bill to allow citizens to know what corporations and wealthy donors are paying for the “independent expenditure” attack ads enabled by the 5-4 Citizens United ruling — the National Rifle Association (NRA) is warning Senators it will score the issue in its legislative scorecard for this Congress.

The NRA opposes the measure — arguing that its “provisions require organizations to turn membership and donor lists over to the government” and would unconstitutionally abridge the right of citizens “to speak and associate privately and anonymously.” The legislation would merely require groups that opt to run outside political ads to tell voters which donors funded those efforts. By setting up a separate bank account for independent political spending, a group like the NRA would be able to keep its membership list private and would need only disclose the large money donors paying for the group’s campaign ads. Far from being unconstitutional, this sort of disclosure was explicitly endorsed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Citizens United majority opinion as “the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.”

In 2010, after supporters of the DISCLOSE Act agreed to exempt just the NRA from the bill, the group dropped its opposition. Now, without those special protections in the 2012 version, the group is taking no chances and is issuing a strong message to any Senator who might support political transparency. The NRA letter warns:

Due to the importance of the fundamental speech and associational rights of the National Rifle Association’s four million members, and considering the blatant attack on those rights that S. 3369 represents, we strongly oppose the DISCLOSE Act and will consider votes on this legislation in future candidate evaluations.

In other words, vulnerable Senators facing re-election may face secret-money attack ads should they back transparency for secret money attack ads.

Here is the text of the letter, sent yesterday by NRA lobbyist Chris W. Cox to Senators and obtained by ThinkProgress:

July 12, 2012
Dear Senator,

I am writing to express the National Rifle Association’s strong opposition to S. 3369, the DISCLOSE Act.

In its landmark Citizens United decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on certain political speech by nonprofit membership associations, including the National Rifle Association. In an effort to mischaracterize that ruling as something other than a vindication of the free speech and associational rights of millions of American citizens, some have repeatedly attempted to effectively reverse or significantly limit the scope of Citizens United. The latest attempt in this regard is S. 3369.

The NRA has been around since 1871. Our members contribute for the purpose of speaking during elections and participating in the political process. We will not risk our Association or our members being silenced at election time, as S. 3369 would do, while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us at will. The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to our members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

Among the many problems with the DISCLOSE Act are its unconstitutional disclosure provisions. These provisions require organizations to turn membership and donor lists over to the government. Under the First Amendment however, as recognized in a long line of Supreme Court cases, citizens have the right to speak and associate privately and anonymously.

Further, the DISCLOSE Act creates byzantine administrative burdens that will suffocate individual citizen associations. The Court in Citizens United was clear: “As additional rules are created for regulating political speech, any speech arguably within their reach is chilled.” This bill attacks nearly all of an association’s political speech by creating an arbitrary patchwork of unprecedented tracking and disclosure requirements. Nonprofit associations would have to track the political priorities of each of its individual members. The cost of complying with these requirements will be immense; for many associations they may prohibit speaking altogether. That violates both the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment.In addition, S. 3369 would give the FEC the power to require the NRA to reveal private, internal discussions with its millions of members about political communications. This unnecessary and burdensome requirement would leave it to government officials to make a determination about the type and volume of speech that would trigger potential criminal penalties, which is unacceptable.

Recent media accounts of retaliation against certain political donors reveal the true intent behind this legislation. It is not simply a “disclosure bill”, as its authors claim. Rather, it is a not-so-transparent attempt to rend Citizens United into a legal nullity, by chilling the very speech rights that were restored in that landmark decision.

Due to the importance of the fundamental speech and associational rights of the National Rifle Association’s four million members, and considering the blatant attack on those rights that S. 3369 represents, we strongly oppose the DISCLOSE Act and will consider votes on this legislation in future candidate evaluations.

Sincerely,
Chris W. Cox

This material [article] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.  It  was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe. The original article is posted here.