Showing posts with label citizen United. Show all posts
Showing posts with label citizen United. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Resolve to Overturn 'Citizens United' Spreads Through the States | The Nation
Resolve to Overturn 'Citizens United' Spreads Through the States | The Nation:
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
Since then, Super-PACs and corporations have spent record amounts of money in elections nationwide. Corporate spending soared during the 2010 election cycle to $294 million, 427 percent over the previous midterm elections in 2006. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer both suggested that given these “huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance,” Kennedy’s assertion doesn’t hold and the court should reconsider its ruling.
It will have the opportunity to do just that on Thursday when it considers the Montana Supreme Court’sdecision in December to uphold the state’s century-old ban on corporate political expenditures in state elections. In February the US Supreme Court informed Montana that it could no longer enforce that law until further notice, and now it must decide whether to hear the state’s case. This is perhaps the most serious challenge to date to the Citizens United decision.
In a recent New York Times op-ed, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer writes that the effects of not being able to enforce the state’s anti-corruption statute “are already being felt here.” He describes “corporate front groups funneling cash into our legislative races,” and bills “ghostwritten by a host of industries looking to weaken state laws,” including overturning a state ban on the use of cyanide to mine gold, and developers seeking “to build condos right on the edge of our legendary trout streams.”
Schweitzer notes that he vetoed the bills but “these big players will eventually get what they seek” if they are allowed to continue their efforts to buy the electoral process.
It is that kind of corruption—which Justice Kennedy minimized—that has moved dozens of local communities across the country to speak out during Resolutions Week, an effort to pass local and state resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. Over 100 resolutions have already been proposed.
People don’t want to see a repeat of Wisconsin, where more than $63 million was spent in the recall election ($50 million went to Walker)—much of it from out of state, including $24 million from outside groups. Local public officials also realize that they can’t raise the kind of resources a handpicked, corporate-favored candidate can now access. There is also an obscenely exorbitant presidential campaign on the horizon with a price tag expected to reach $2 billion or more, including hundreds of millions of dollars flowing in from wealthy and corporate interests. In May alone, conservative groups spent $20 million in just nine swing states and Michigan.
Legislators have clearly reached their own conclusion that there is an “appearance of corruption.” Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have joined Montana in asking the Supreme Court to uphold the state’s ban on corporate expenditures. This coalition is a mix of red, blue, and purple states, including New York, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia. Senators John McCain and Sheldon Whitehouse also filed an amicus brief in support of Montana,writing, “Evidence from the 2010 and 2012 electoral cycles has demonstrated that so-called independent expenditures create a strong potential for corruption and the perception thereof.”
This Resolutions Week, many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including co-chairs Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison, are supporting city and town councils and state legislatures as they push for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Local efforts will be held across the nation: from Baker City, Oregon, to Huntsville, Alabama; Wichita, Kansas, to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; Provo, Utah, to Corpus Christi, Texas. Dozens of localities have already approved similar resolutions.
Original post: http://www.thenation.com/blog/168346/resolve-overturn-citizens-united-spreads-through-states
Friday, February 17, 2012
Supreme Court Blocks Montana Campaign Finance Ban
Supreme Court Blocks Montana Campaign Finance Ban
The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Montana Supreme Court's decision upholding the state's century-old ban on corporate political spending.
The ruling Friday evening sets up a possible full-blown U.S. Supreme Court rematch over the 2010 Citizens United decision that allowed unlimited corporate campaign spending. It came in response to an application submitted last week by American Tradition Partnership, a conservative interest group that says it fights "the radical environmentalist agenda," and two companies, seeking to have Montana's ban struck down. A five-member majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United declared that corporations' independent spending in elections does not corrupt -- or even appear to corrupt -- the political process.
The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Montana Supreme Court's decision upholding the state's century-old ban on corporate political spending.
The ruling Friday evening sets up a possible full-blown U.S. Supreme Court rematch over the 2010 Citizens United decision that allowed unlimited corporate campaign spending. It came in response to an application submitted last week by American Tradition Partnership, a conservative interest group that says it fights "the radical environmentalist agenda," and two companies, seeking to have Montana's ban struck down. A five-member majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United declared that corporations' independent spending in elections does not corrupt -- or even appear to corrupt -- the political process.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Colbert is in. Stewart takes over the Super Pac and will not coordinate
I think the Colbert Report and Daily Show will have a ball with this showcasing the stupidity of Citizen's United and the wisdom of some of America's premier legal minds.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Indecision 2012 - Colbert Super PAC - Coordination Problem | ||||
| ||||
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Indecision 2012 - Colbert Super PAC - Coordination Resolution with Jon Stewart | ||||
| ||||
Saturday, January 7, 2012
The biggest threat to Citizens United - Campaign Finance - Salon.com
The biggest threat to Citizens United - Campaign Finance - Salon.com
Last week, while the national press corps was busy pretending the tiny Iowa caucus was the only news in America, a major ruling out of Montana paved the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown over the role of corporate money in politics.
In the case, which was spearheaded by the state’s Democratic Attorney General Steve Bullock, Montana’s top court restored Big Sky country’s century-old law banning corporations from directly spending on political candidates or committees. Legal experts believe that upon appeal, this case will come before the nation’s highest court. While there, it could serve as the first test of the precedents in the infamous Citizens United decision that essentially allows unfettered corporate spending in campaigns.
This week on my weekday morning radio show on KKZN-AM760, I spoke with Bullock about the case. What follows is an edited transcript of our discussion (you can find the full audio podcast here).
Last week, while the national press corps was busy pretending the tiny Iowa caucus was the only news in America, a major ruling out of Montana paved the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown over the role of corporate money in politics.
In the case, which was spearheaded by the state’s Democratic Attorney General Steve Bullock, Montana’s top court restored Big Sky country’s century-old law banning corporations from directly spending on political candidates or committees. Legal experts believe that upon appeal, this case will come before the nation’s highest court. While there, it could serve as the first test of the precedents in the infamous Citizens United decision that essentially allows unfettered corporate spending in campaigns.
This week on my weekday morning radio show on KKZN-AM760, I spoke with Bullock about the case. What follows is an edited transcript of our discussion (you can find the full audio podcast here).
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
'Citizens United' Backlash: Montana Supreme Court Upholds State's Corporate Campaign Spending Ban
'Citizens United' Backlash: Montana Supreme Court Upholds State's Corporate Campaign Spending Ban
WASHINGTON -- The Montana Supreme Court has put itself on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a century-old state law that bans corporate spending in state and local political campaigns.
The law, which was passed by Montana voters in 1912 to combat Gilded Age corporate control over much of Montana's government, states that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, struck down a similar federal statute, holding that independent electoral spending by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" that such laws were enacted to combat.
That reasoning -- described by the Citizens United dissenters as a "crabbed view of corruption" -- compelled 23 of the 24 states with independent spending bans to stop enforcing their restrictions, according to Edwin Bender, executive director of the Helena, Mont.-based National Institute on Money in State Politics. Montana, however, stood by its 1912 law, which led several corporations to challenge it as unconstitutional.
LP - This Supreme Court needs Mitt Romney Inc. to explain to them that corporations are people too my friends.
WASHINGTON -- The Montana Supreme Court has put itself on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a century-old state law that bans corporate spending in state and local political campaigns.
The law, which was passed by Montana voters in 1912 to combat Gilded Age corporate control over much of Montana's government, states that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, struck down a similar federal statute, holding that independent electoral spending by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" that such laws were enacted to combat.
That reasoning -- described by the Citizens United dissenters as a "crabbed view of corruption" -- compelled 23 of the 24 states with independent spending bans to stop enforcing their restrictions, according to Edwin Bender, executive director of the Helena, Mont.-based National Institute on Money in State Politics. Montana, however, stood by its 1912 law, which led several corporations to challenge it as unconstitutional.
LP - This Supreme Court needs Mitt Romney Inc. to explain to them that corporations are people too my friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)