<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img
src="cid:part1.00040205.06020304@meek.net" alt="" align="top"
height="90" width="750"></p>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">U.S. Supreme Court Unleashes Unlimited
Corporate Funds for Political Campaigns on All Levels</h2>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">The Democrats Can Stop This, But
Probably Won't</h3>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Contact: Daniel Meek<br>
</strong><a href="mailto:dan@fairelections.net"><strong>dan@fairelections.net</strong></a><strong><br>
503-293-9021</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>January 20, 2010</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>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.</strong> 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).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">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.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>We need a national campaign to "enlarge the Court" now. Check out</p>
<p><a href="http://www.packthecourt.com">www.packthecourt.com</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="emailfooter">--<br>
To unsubscribe from this list: <a
href="http://oreg.org/phplist/?p=unsubscribe&uid=5ca6d223e290b559af13ef1fb67c4db6">this
link</a><br>
<br>
To change your email address or update your preferences: <a
href="http://oreg.org/phplist/?p=preferences&uid=5ca6d223e290b559af13ef1fb67c4db6">this
link</a><br>
<br>
To add a subscription with a different email address: <a
href="http://oreg.org/phplist/?p=subscribe">this link</a><br>
<br>
To forward this message: <a
href="http://oreg.org/phplist/?p=forward&uid=5ca6d223e290b559af13ef1fb67c4db6&mid=13">this
link</a></div>
<br>
<p align="left"><a href="http://www.phplist.com"><img
src="cid:part2.04050306.07010500@meek.net"
title="Powered by PHPlist version 2.10.10, © tincan ltd"
alt="Powered by PHPlist2.10.10, © tincan ltd" border="0" height="30"
width="70"></a></p>
</body>
</html>