You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Sunday, November 23, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

States Close in on Citizens United: California, Montana, and Beyond

John Bonifaz
YES! Magazine / News Analysis
Published: Saturday 14 July 2012
“With the passage of a resolution through its state legislature, California is the latest to join this growing grassroots movement across the nation.”
Article image

Last week, the State of California became the sixth state in the country to call for a constitutional amendment overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, and restoring democracy to the people.  

With the passage of a resolution through its state legislature, California is the latest to join this growing grassroots movement across the nation.  Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont, and Rhode Island have passed similar resolutions through their state legislatures, and a majority of state legislators in Maryland have signed a letter to Congress supporting an amendment. And, just this past Wednesday, the Montana Secretary of State certified for the November ballot a voter initiative calling for a constitutional amendment, the first such statewide ballot measure in the country.  

All of this comes on the heels of another controversial Supreme Court decision, in a Montana case, that makes it clearer than ever that we the people must use our amendment power under the Constitution to defend our democracy.

In January 2010, just five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Citizens United, to sweep away a century of precedent barring corporate money in elections. They asserted that independent corporate expenditures would not corrupt the electoral process nor create the appearance of corruption.  They made that assertion without any facts to back it up.  This is because the petitioners in Citizens United never presented such facts in the first place and did not seek, in their original complaint, to overturn prior Supreme Court rulings prohibiting corporate political expenditures.  These five Justices, on their own, transformed the Citizens United case into a vehicle for unleashing unlimited corporate money in our elections. 

We've Done It Before—With Slavery, Suffrage, and More: 7 Amendments That Overruled the Court

  1. The Eleventh Amendment—overturned, in 1795, a Supreme Court decision from 1793 allowing federal courts to hear cases in which a citizen of one state sues the government of another.
  2. The Thirteenth Amendment—abolished slavery, after Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) held that slaves could not sue for freedom because they and their children were not citizens.
  3. The Fourteenth Amendment—grants citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States. This also overrules Dred Scott's ruling that slaves were not eligible for citizenship.
  4. The Sixteenth Amendment—gives Congress the power to levy a direct national income tax, 18 years after  1895's  Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. held that individual income taxes were unconstitutional.
  5. The Nineteenth Amendment—guarantees women the right to vote, even though Minor v. Happersett (1875) had found that the Fourteenth Amendment did not include women.
  6. The Twenty-fourth Amendment—bans poll taxes in federal elections. Two Supreme Court rulings,Breedlove v. Suttles in 1937 andButler v. Thompsonin1951, had allowed both state and federal governments to put financial conditions on the right to vote (designed to especially discourage African-American voters). The Court later decided, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), to ban poll taxes in states.
  7. The Twenty-sixth Amendment—allows 18-year-olds to vote in federal, state, and local elections. Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) had ruled that states could set their own minimum voting age. But with many 18-year-olds dying in the Vietnam war, the 26th amendment was adopted in 1971. 

Two weeks ago, they had a chance to reconsider the decision—and the facts showing that independent corporate expenditures do lead to corruption and the appearance of corruption—by accepting for review the case of American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock: a case that addressed Montana’s century-old law barring corporate money in elections.  

In 1912, the voters of Montana passed the Corrupt Practices Act in response to the dominance and control of their elections and government by the “Copper Kings,” the barons of the copper mining industry during the Gilded Age.

On December 30 of last year, the Montana Supreme Court issued a major ruling upholding the law after a corporate entity, American Tradition Partnership, had challenged it, seeking to spend its money in Montana elections.  The state supreme court recounted the extensive evidence of corruption that led to its passage and asked: “When in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did?”  

The court cited in this history how W.A. Clark, a Copper King, had purchased a U.S. Senate seat by paying members of the Montana state legislature for their votes.  (Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishing direct elections of U.S. Senators by popular vote, state legislatures had appointed them.)  

When the Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, he engaged in further corruption to obtain a second appointment, serving in the Senate from 1901 to 1907.  Clark’s bribery was so notorious that, as the Montana Supreme Court noted, in 1907 Mark Twain wrote that Clark “is said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment.  By his example he has so excused and so sweetened corruption that in Montana it no longer has an offensive smell.”  

When American Tradition Partnership appealed, taking the Montana law to the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than reviewing this history and the factual evidence that justified the law, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, took the extraordinary step of issuing a summary reversal of a state supreme court ruling, denying any merits-based review of that decision.  In other words, without even hearing the case or reviewing the factual record before them, the nation’s highest court reversed the Montana Supreme Court and struck down the state’s century-old law. This is a radical action by the same five Justices—just as radical as the Citizens United ruling.

It is time to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court—and we the people have the power to do this.  

We have used the Constitution’s Article V amendment power many times before. Seven of our 27 amendments have overturned egregious Supreme Court rulings, and since the Citizens United ruling, people across this country have been mobilizing in support of a new amendment to reclaim our democracy.  

Hundreds of resolutions similar to the one approved in California last week have already been passed in cities and towns throughout the nation, including the cities of Boston, Los Angeles, New York, and Seattle.  Eleven state attorneys general have joined the call.  More than 1,000 business leaders are on board.  More than a dozen amendment bills related to Citizens United are now pending in the U.S. Congress.  The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to hold a hearing on amendment proposals on July 24.  And, the President of the United States has said an amendment may be necessary.

The Court’s decision in the Montana case will only further fuel this movement, as it is clearer than ever that this Court, under its current makeup, is not likely to revisit Citizens United any time soon.  The last two years of experience under the Citizens United ruling have demonstrated that independent expenditures from corporations and mega-wealthy individuals threaten the integrity of our elections, and we can expect to see even more of this in the coming months.  

Americans across the political spectrum agree that corporations are not people and that the promise of government of, for, and by the people must be defended. We are at a crossroads. We’re facing one of our gravest tests.  But as in such moments of crisis before, we are coming together, and we will use our power under the Constitution to protect our republican democracy.

John Bonifaz wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and practical actions. John is co-founder and executive director of Free Speech For People.



ABOUT John Bonifaz

John Bonifaz wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and practical actions. John is co-founder and executive director of Free Speech For People.

Elections have been for sale

Elections have been for sale for some time. Even 15 years ago you never heard how much money someone raised in a race. Now it is the first thing reported even by the hallowed NPR. Now it is assumed that whomever raises the most money will win and that was proved in Wisconsin. Democracy is for sale and I cannot afford it or the oligarchy we now live in.

We definitely have the best

We definitely have the best election results that money can buy. This is why the Republicans pander to corporate America.

'...the broadcasters’ trade

'...the broadcasters’ trade group said that if the new FCC rule goes into effect, broadcasters “will suffer irreparable harm" '

Irreparable harm by revealing how much they are selling the public's asset for? Oh deadly sunlight. Can crack dealers charge irreparable harm from phone taps?

My proposal: Only Citizens

My proposal: Only Citizens of the Jurisdiction may participate in an election or referendum.

This means that only people can participate in the election process. Not unions, not corporations. The idea is to level the playing field so that the public good prevails over private interests, and encourage more participation by citizens in the shaping of government and to bar the influence of big money.

The terms need clear definition.

Citizen--a human being who is eligible to vote in that jurisidiction.
Jurisdiction--the political district subject to the outcome of the election or referendum
Participate--the citizen contributes their own money, their own labor, their own endorsement, their own tangible goods to support the election of a candiate or to influence the outcome of the referendum. Participate in this case means taking sides. This does not include non-partisan activities like voter registration or holding public forums where candidates debate or issues are discussed.
Election--the selection by the citizens of a person from among a set of candiates to serve as a government official
referendum--the polling of the citizens to decide an issue of public interest

Caveats:
Disclosure--The identity of persons paying for publicity must be disclosed.
Limits must be made on the amount of money that a citizen can contribute to a particular candidate or referendum.
All election activities must originate from the candidate or be approved by the candidate. This puts the responsibility for all publicity related to the election on the candidates. This is the antithesis of Citizens United.

Note: Public financing of elections and referendums should be manditory, to reduce the influence of money on election outcomes. Elections and referendums are public processes. The current situation that allows unlimited private money to drive elections and referendums does not serve the public interest.

We need some test cases.

We need some test cases. Charge corporate executives for the crimes they commit. If corporations are people then somebody should be responsible for employee injury, defrauding investors & customers poisoning the environment, etc.

Also, impeach the 'justices' who found that corporations and other wealth centers can make unlimited, anonymous, political donations. This is such as offensive decision that it at least deserves running these guys through the process.

Can't remember where I ran

Can't remember where I ran across this quote, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

Let's defeat this

Let's defeat this democracy-destroying decision!

All the Citizens United

All the Citizens United decision did was sprinkle holy water on something that has been going on for decades. Public disclosure commissions in many states, including my own state of Washington, have publicized political donations for years. For every ballot initiative and every candidate for public office, anyone can find out who is contributing for which side and how much, with just a few keystrokes on a laptop, just as I am doing now.

I have watched voters shoot themselves in the foot time after time while ignoring who contributes millions to races for political candidates and for/against ballot initiatives. People just want an excuse for their own stupidity and a silver bullet to save them from their own stupidity, not learn how to vote wisely.

Question for the 5 stooges on

Question for the 5 stooges on the Supreme Court: If corporations are people, whats their unemployment rate?

Corporations are people and

Corporations are people and they can donate anonymously. Al Qaeda are secretly investing to defeat Obama.

The Patriot Act legislated

The Patriot Act legislated away the 4th amendment. If a constitutional convention were called unfortunately Americans are so stupid they would repeal the 4th Amendment.

Great posts! Again, the

Great posts!

Again, the viewers of Fox "News" aren't even aware that this is a problem. Anyone that would vote for advocates of selling our democracy are gullible in the extreme. How do they think this could ever benefit them? Ultra ignorant.

Because of the "Citizens

Because of the "Citizens United" ruling, the Supreme Court opened the door to foreign influence in our elections.
Why wasn't "Citizens United" called "Corporations and Aristocrats United"? It has little to do with ordinary citizens and everything to do with those who have a large amount of money.

Montana had it so right in

Montana had it so right in 1912 with their Corrupt Practices Act

The USA and the world's

The USA and the world's banking and corporate malfeasance, income gap and social ills will never be solved without total sovereign banking being established. Privately owned central banks must be replaced by government owned national banks. It can be done easily--watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

After the amendment overturns

After the amendment overturns citizens united, impeachment of a couple justices is in order to make sure injustice is not waiting around the corner. Worse yet revenge by the justices cannot be ruled out. They have proved America's best interest is not their priority.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...