From dan at meek.net Thu Jan 21 11:15:13 2010 From: dan at meek.net (Dan Meek) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:15:13 -0800 Subject: [CFR-Announce] U.S. Supreme Court Unleashes Unlimited Corporate Funds for Political Campaigns on All Levels Message-ID: <4B588BA1.6010203@meek.net> U.S. Supreme Court Unleashes Unlimited Corporate Funds for Political Campaigns on All Levels The Democrats Can Stop This, But Probably Won't *Contact: Daniel Meek **dan at fairelections.net* * 503-293-9021* *January 20, 2010* The ability of the people to limit political campaign spending is now under assault by a predominantly Republican-appointed Supreme Court. The Democrats could stop this but appear to have no interest in doing so. Corporations have been banned from making any contributions to candidates for federal office since 1907 and banned from making any "independent expenditures" since 1947. Unions have also been banned since 1947 been from making contributions or independent expenditures for or against federal candidates. *But now the U.S. Supreme Court and its Republican-appointed majority has declared unconstitutional (under the First Amendment) the ban on using corporate money for "independent expenditures" to support or oppose candidates.* The Court adopted a special rush schedule to decide the Citizens United, Inc. case, so that the federal ban on corporate "independent expenditures" is destroyed prior to the 2010 Congressional elections (along with the laws in 22 states banning "independent expenditures" by corporations and unions). This decision will allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts to mislead voters, with massive media campaigns, about the beliefs and policies of the candidates they support (or oppose). It also sets the stage for the Court to then declare that, since (1) independent expenditures must be unlimited and (2) candidates themselves should be in control of their messages to voters, there is no compelling reason to limit contributions to candidates by anyone, including corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals. This would completely destroy campaign finance reform in the United States for all candidate races, including federal, state, and local. On the Oregon level, the U.S. Supreme Court decision has no immediate effect. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General, both Democrats, continue to refuse to enforce any of Measure 47 of 2006, enacted by Oregon voters three years ago as the most comprehensive and strict campaign finance reform law in America. Instead, they continue to allow unlimited political contributions and unlimited expenditures by all corporations, unions, and individuals. The Measure 47 Chief Petitioners are suing the Secretary of State and Attorney General to require that they enforce the law. The case is now in the Oregon Court of Appeals, where briefing was complete 7 months ago and oral argument is scheduled for February 25, 2010. The Democrats in Congress and the White House could have stopped this, and still can stop it, by enlarging the Court itself. The current 5-4 majority against campaign finance reform will likely persist for many years, as the youngest justices are generally the most hostile to limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. The number of justices on the Court is determined by statute and has been changed 8 times in the past. A simple majority in the House and Senate, along with the President's signature, could add two justices, allowing President Obama to quickly establish a majority that would uphold the campaign finance laws that are critical to maintaining any semblance of democracy. His sole appointee so far, Justice Sotomayor, voted with the minority to uphold the ban on corporate "independent expenditures." Can enlarging the Court work? The mere public announcement by Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) in 1937 of a bill to increase the number of justices (the "court-packing plan") resulted in the famous "switch in time that saved nine," when Justice Owen Roberts then suddenly reversed his anti-New Deal stance so that Congress would be discouraged from adding more justices. Taking the initiative to change the court worked for FDR, almost immediately. Then, FDR in the next 6 years replaced 8 of the 9 justices, who retired or died. Will the Democrats in Congress, with their large majorities, enlarge the court? Probably not, because releasing unlimited corporate money would benefit them as well, protecting them against any populist challenges in their primaries or the emergence of progressive minor party candidates. The same Court decision would also unleash unlimited union spending to benefit Democrats further. But aren't 60 votes needed to pass anything in the U.S. Senate, since current Senate rules require 60 votes to stop a filibuster? Absolutely not. The Republicans did not need 60 votes in order to confirm the opponents of campaign finance reform to the U.S. Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas was confirmed with only 52 votes; Samuel Alito by only 58. And it takes only a majority vote to change the rules requiring 60 votes to close debate on a bill. Legal articles on how a simple majority can change the filibuster rule are available at the website noted below. We need a national campaign to "enlarge the Court" now. Check out www.packthecourt.com . -- To unsubscribe from this list: this link To change your email address or update your preferences: this link To add a subscription with a different email address: this link To forward this message: this link Powered by PHPlist2.10.10, ? tincan ltd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 12609 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 2408 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dan at meek.net Fri Apr 30 17:18:45 2010 From: dan at meek.net (Dan Meek) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:18:45 -0700 Subject: [CFR-Announce] Ralph Nader Speaks in Portland on May 8, 7:30 p.m. Message-ID: <4BDB5745.9060802@meek.net> Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Progressive Party of Oregon *RALPH NADER IS COMING TO PORTLAND!* * Saturday, May 8* First Unitarian Church Sanctuary 1211 SW Main Street, Portland Doors/book signing at 7:30 p.m. Program at 8:00 p.m. *?Obama So Far . . . A New Strategy for Progressives.? * Mr. Nader will discuss his book /?Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!?/ and *Ways to Democratically Mobilize the Country for Long Overdue Changes*, including: // "Wall Street: What _Real_ Reform Would Look Like" Clean/Renewable Energy vs. Subsidizing Nukes and Coal Plants Healthcare Reform: Why Single-Payer Remains the Necessary Long-Term Solution Afghanistan War: Quagmire in the Making? The _Citizens United_ Decision: How to Stop Corporate Personhood Mr. Nader?s talk will include specific issues facing progressives _in Oregon_ and will be followed by a Q&A session. Following the Q&A session, Mr. Nader will sign books, including his newest book project /In the Shadow of Power/ (www.intheshadowofpower.com), a photo-journalist documentation of Washington DC's tale of two cities. *For more information or to volunteer to assist with this event, please contact Philip Kauffman at 503-250-0327 or pmkauffman at gmail.com* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: progressive_party.png Type: image/png Size: 9025 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dan at meek.net Tue May 18 05:23:11 2010 From: dan at meek.net (Dan Meek) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 03:23:11 -0700 Subject: [CFR-Announce] U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Review Oregon Decision Upholding Limits on Lobbyist Gifts to Public Officials, Legislators Message-ID: <4BF26A8F.3070306@meek.net> May 18, 2010 U.S. SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO REVIEW OREGON DECISION UPHOLDING LIMITS ON LOBBYIST GIFTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS BUT THE LIMITS HAVE NO PRACTICAL EFFECT IN OREGON?S REGIME OF UNLIMITED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND VIRTUALLY NO LIMITS ON HOW THEY ARE SPENT Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the December 2009 decision of the Oregon Supreme Court in /Vannatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission/, in which lobbyists challenged the constitutionality of the limits on gifts, entertainment (meals, golf, etc.), and honoraria that (1) lobbyists (or anyone with a particular economic interest in government action, including legislation) can give to public officeholders or candidates for public office or (2) public officeholders or candidates can receive. The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of review ("certiorari") has the effect of upholding the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court. The opinion of the Oregon Supreme Court is at: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supreme.htm#dec09 The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of review is at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051710zor.pdf (page 5) Under a statute enacted in 2007, the limit on gifts from any person to any officeholder or candidate (or to their close relative) is $50 per year. Providing ?entertainment? is limited to $50 per year per recipient. Honoraria (usually speaking fees) are limited to $50 per recipient per occasion. The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the limits on what public officeholders or candidates can receive as gifts, entertainment, or honoraria. The Court struck down those same limits as applied to what persons can offer to give to public officeholders or candidates. The result is that, while anyone can now offer unlimited gifts, entertainment, or honoraria, Oregon public officials and candidates cannot accept such offers which exceed the statutory limits. Thus, the offering becomes moot. An extensive amicus brief was filed by seven individual Oregon voters, several of whom were chief petitioners on the most recent statewide campaign finance reform initiatives (in 2006). This brief is available at http://fairelections.net/court/gifts ?These limits on gifts, speaking fees, gifts, and other benefits for officeholders and candidates are clearly valid,? said Dan Meek, an attorney on the amicus brief. ?Nearly all states and the federal government either prohibit or have low limits on gifts to public officeholders." ?While it is good that the Court upheld the limits, that will have little or no effect in practice,? said Meek. ?As our brief in the case demonstrated, the lobbyists can provide the same benefits to public officials and candidates (gifts, entertainment, and even honoraria in the form of consulting fees) in the form of ?campaign contributions,? which the Legislature has chosen not to restrict. Some of the widely-publicized legislator luxury trips to Hawaii were actually paid for with campaign contributions, and yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court order will not prevent such trips in the future. "Until the Secretary of State or Attorney General starts enforcing Measure 47, enacted by the voters of Oregon in 2006, lobbyists can continue to use big money to buy influence with government.? Oregon voters in 2006 enacted in Measure 47 the nation's most comprehensive and strict system of limits on political campaign contributions and expenditures, including a ban on using campaign contributions for anything other than reaching voters during the campaign. But the Secretary of State and Attorney General of Oregon are refusing to enforce the limits. The Chief Petitioners on Measure 47 are suing those government officials to require them to enforce the law. That case is before the Oregon Court of Appeals. Until that law is enforced, Oregon remains effectively one of only 4 states without limits on campaign contributions, which in Oregon can be used for almost any purpose, including: 1. for any campaign-related purpose, including taking extended luxury trips to Hawaii or elsewhere to meet with potential contributors; 2. to pay "any expenses incurred in connection with the person?s duties as a holder of public office," including unrestricted payments to friends or relatives for office work; and 3. to repay to a candidate any loan the proceeds of which were used in connection with the candidate?s campaign. This last category means that a campaign contributions can be deposited directly into the personal bank account of the candidate or former candidate. In addition, campaign contributions have ended up in the pockets of sitting legislators. For example: The political action committee for the House Republicans? caucus reported Friday that it paid Rep. Karen Minnis, a caucus member, $2,700 for campaign consulting services this month. Minnis, R-Wood Village, donated $10,000 to the caucus? PAC, Promote Oregon Leadership PAC, in December. She formed a consulting business, Karen Minnis and Associates, that month and the caucus committee has now paid her $15,500 for consulting services. House Republicans Pay Minnis $2,700, Oregonian (August 23, 2008); http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2008/08/house_republicans_pay_mi nnis_2.html . For more information: Daniel Meek, attorney (503) 293-9021 dan at fairelections.net Linda Williams, attorney (503) 293-0399 linda at fairelections.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: feologo.gif Type: image/gif Size: 12609 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dan at meek.net Wed Jun 9 22:18:04 2010 From: dan at meek.net (Dan Meek) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:18:04 -0700 Subject: [CFR-Announce] U.S. Supreme Court Destroys Arizona Public Funding System Message-ID: <4C10596C.1010208@meek.net> Supreme Court Blocks Arizona Election Funding David G. Savage and Jennifer Martinez, Tribune Washington Bureau June 8, 2010 | 2:39 p.m. Washington....The Supreme Court, in an unusual move, came to the aid Tuesday of well-funded candidates in Arizona and blocked the state from giving extra public money to those candidates who had agreed to forego private financing. The court's emergency orders throws a wrench into the state's campaigns two months before its primary elections. It is the latest sign the high court's conservative bloc is skeptical of legal rules to limit election spending or to equalize the spending between wealthy and not-so-wealthy candidates. Two years ago, the court in a 5-4 decision intervened on a behalf of a wealthy candidate for Congress from upstate New York and struck down the so-called "Millionaire's Amendment." That measure, part of the McCain-Feingold Act, allowed a candidate to raise more money through larger donations if his opponent was spending lavishly. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called it a "drag" on the free-speech rights of the millionaire candidate because he was penalized for spending more on his race. That ruling, in turn, fueled a 1st Amendment challenge to Arizona's Clean Elections Law, which was approved by its voters in 1998. The measure was designed to combat corruption in the state legislature. It providing public funds for candidates who agreed to abide by limits on spending and fund-raising. Gov. Jan Brewer was among those who were surprised by the high court's order. She called it "terribly troubling." A Republican, she is being challenged in the Republican primary by Buz Mills, a wealthy businessman, who has already spent more than $2 million on his race. Brewer had agreed to public funding and was to receive $707,000 for her campaign. She was also eligible to receive up to $1.4 million in extra matching funds because Mills, her opponent, had vastly outspent her. The Supreme Court's order means she will not receive the extra money later this month. "It is extremely unusual for the judicial branch to change the rules of an election while it is being held," Brewer said. The primary election is set for August 24. The matching funds were to go out on June 22. For its part, the Supreme Court order is likely to stay in effect at least until the fall, when it probably will hear arguments in the case. Todd Lang, executive director of the Arizona Clean Elections Commission, said he too was surprised by the timing of the court's intervention. "I'm extremely disappointed. To take an action such as this so late in the election cycle is unprecedented. Matching funds result in more speech and political debate, not less." But the challengers, led by the Goldwater Institute and the Institute for Justice, called the court's order a "victory of freedom of political speech." The decision "will allow the 2010 Arizona election to occur without the government placing its thumb on the scale in favor of those politicians who receive public funding," said Bill Maurer for the IJ. In January the Supreme Court gave corporations a free speech right to spend unlimited amounts on election races, overturning another part of the McCain-Feingold act. The Arizona law has been in effect for a decade, and most state legislators have agreed to take public funding. But the court has said candidates always retain the right to raise and spend money on their own. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Millionaire's Amendment, a federal judge in Phoenix struck down Arizona's system of matching funds for candidates who faced well-healed opponents. The ruling did not void the principle of public funding, however. However, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived the full law this spring and said the extra matching funds did not infringe the free-speech rights of the millionaire candidates. The challengers appealed to the high court seeking an emergency order to block the distribution of the matching funds until the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutional challenge. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, speaking for the court, granted the order Tuesday. He did not say who voted in favor, but it takes the votes of five justices to grant a stay. Nick Dranias, lead lawyer for the Goldwater Institute, said the matching funds violate the 1st Amendment rights of the privately funded candidate because the state "funds dollar for dollar hostile speech against you." If the privately funded candidate raises more money, his opponent gets more public funds, he said. Loyola Law Professor Richard Hasen, an election law expert, said the court's order signals the justices are likely to take up the constitutional challenge and strike down the key part of the Arizona law. "It shows there is such a distrust of these measures among five justices," said. "It also shows a lot is up for grabs" in the area of campaign finance, he said. David.savage at latimes.com JenMartinez at Tribune.Com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: freespeech.jpg.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 154601 bytes Desc: not available URL: