[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