[CFR-Announce] U.S. Supreme Court Unleashes Unlimited Corporate Funds for Political Campaigns on All Levels

Dan Meek dan at meek.net
Thu Jan 21 11:15:13 CST 2010


    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* <mailto: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 <http://www.packthecourt.com>

.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: this link 
<http://oreg.org/phplist/?p=unsubscribe&uid=5ca6d223e290b559af13ef1fb67c4db6>

To change your email address or update your preferences: this link 
<http://oreg.org/phplist/?p=preferences&uid=5ca6d223e290b559af13ef1fb67c4db6>

To add a subscription with a different email address: this link 
<http://oreg.org/phplist/?p=subscribe>

To forward this message: this link 
<http://oreg.org/phplist/?p=forward&uid=5ca6d223e290b559af13ef1fb67c4db6&mid=13>

Powered by PHPlist2.10.10, © tincan ltd <http://www.phplist.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oreg.org/pipermail/cfr-announce_oreg.org/attachments/20100121/0fb2299a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 12609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oreg.org/pipermail/cfr-announce_oreg.org/attachments/20100121/0fb2299a/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 2408 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oreg.org/pipermail/cfr-announce_oreg.org/attachments/20100121/0fb2299a/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the CFR-Announce mailing list