Employment as a precursor to income as a precursor to eating as a precursor to speech. Corporations as a precursor to all of that. What could possibly be next?
Austin 's antidistortion rationale would produce the dangerous, and unacceptable, consequence that Congress could ban political speech of media corporations. See McConnell , 540 U. S., at 283 (opinion of THOMAS, J. ) ("The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press"). Cf. Tornillo , 418 U. S., at 250 (alleging the existence of "vast accumulations of unreviewable power in the modern media empires").
Banning political speech of media corporations would be a bad thing. I agree completely. Next sentence please.
So... now that we've dispensed with the case actually presented to the Supreme Court let's move on to the case Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy really wanted to rule on. From the Bill of Rights:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The case should have ended on page 12 with a unanimous determination.
But, alas, it didn't...
As the foregoing analysis confirms, the Court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment .
This statement implies that accepting their own conclusion and deciding against Citizens United will result in some new "chilling" effect on political speech. This does not follow. Upholding existing law that has been on the books in one form or another for 103 years will not "chill" anything new.
The foregoing analysis shows nothing more than the fact that this corporation's movie was properly regulated under existing law. There has been no showing of chilling effect on political speech new or old. But let's see what they say next...
Ok, so this next part of the 5-man majority opinion breaks down the actual questions placed in front of the court. Citizens United's case in other words.
A)
Citizens United contends that §441b does not cover Hillary , as a matter of statutory interpretation, because the film does not qualify as an "electioneering communication." §441b(b)(2)
After a few paragraphs of talk of legal precedents, details and particulars of types of communications and the number of people they reach, blah, blah, blah, they conclude "Section 441b covers Hillary."
Now, I'm not a constitutional lawyer but... I have worked in Information Technology for over a quarter century and have an affinity for the application of logic.
I've finished reading the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. (The decision and all related documents can be found at the FEC website.)(HTML version at Cornell law) This is the immediately infamous case overthrowing 103 years of government regulation of corporate electioneering. I read through the Court's majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy and two concurring opinions authored by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia Thursday. Friday I read through the dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor. I then read a further , short opinion by Justice Thomas dissenting to one small part of the majorities opinion while agreeing with the rest.
I don't make a habit of this but have read through portions of court decisions in the past in order to understand the issues at hand.
Before getting into the case let me say that I go into this as a strong free speech advocate. Almost, but not quite, an absolutist on the subject. Let me also say that I go into this with a deep concern for the influence of money in politics and a driving desire to further separate the political process from the effects of the almighty dollar.
Most constitutional questions end up being a balancing problem... the weighting of one important right against another important and fundamental right. This is ostensibly the case here as our democratic process is incredibly damaged by the distorting influence of money but the restriction on any speech casts a deathly pall on the rights of all to speak freely in the political arena as elsewhere.
On Tuesday, June 9, the State Senate Elections Committee holds a public hearing in Albany on campaign finance reform -- and supporters of public financing of elections will be there. Citizen Action of New York and Common Cause are organizing buses from around the state. We'll attend the hearing, lobby senators, and hold a rally and press event. Please be there and show your support!
IT'S TIME TO CHANGE ALBANY AND PUT
VOTERS, NOT DONORS IN CHARGE!
WITH PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS
RALLY AT THE CAPITOL FOR REAL
CHANGE THIS YEAR!
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
10:45am to 4:00pm
Meeting Room B, Concourse
Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY
Join us as we attend the Elections Committee Meeting at 11:00am, Lobby off the Senate and Assembly floors, Rally at the Capitol, and Hold a Press Conference
Contact Kate Doehring to get on the bus to Albany: 212.523.0180 x 43 or kdoehring@citizenactionny.org
On March 31, a bipartisan group of House members introduced H.R. 1826, and a similarly bipartisan pair of Senators introduced S. 752. Both bills are entitled the "Fair Elections Now Act," and each bill provides for partial public funding of elections in its respective house of Congress. These bills are an attempt to reduce the prevalence of large donors in congressional elections, the need for elected officials and candidates to spend enormous amounts of time fundraising, and the power large donors have over the legislative process.
Unfortunately, these bills not only fail to achieve their objectives, but in several ways they will actually make things worse.
The plan these bills create would set up a fund that disperses money to congressional candidates who qualify by raising enough money in small donations (between $5-100). Any candidate who participates in the plan would be limited to donations of $100 or less, rather than the current limit of $4,600 ($2,300 for a primary, and another $2,300 for a general election).
A participating candidate who raises enough money from enough small donors would qualify for a lump sum in public money, with the possibility of doubling that sum through "matching funds" for extra money raised. Qualifying candidates would not be allowed to spend their own or their family's money (except for $100 per person), would not be allowed to accept large donations to their "Leadership PACs," and would be required to debate their opponents.
On its surface, this plan sounds like a method for getting rid of large donors (and large fundraisers who raise huge sums for a candidate). It also seeks to end the constant money chase - currently, both major parties have large phonebanks in Washington, DC, and expect their elected officials to spend a lot of time there, calling donors to raise money for the next election; this plan tries to end that practice.
Dig beneath that surface, however, and it turns out that the endless fundraising, and the large donors, will not be eliminated or even diminished. Instead, the focus will shift slightly, and that shift will make things even worse for truly independent voices.
There's a great piece in Newsday this morning about how the 123 count corruption indictment against Hank Morris should make it clear to everyone that the time for full public financing for public elections, a real Clean Money, Clean Elections type arrangement, has indeed arrived. It's well worth a read.
It's time to end pay for play Until Albany enacts public financing for state races, offices like the comptroller's will remain too susceptible to corruption
If money is power, then the most powerful public official in New York is its comptroller, the sole trustee of a state employees pension fund worth more than a hundred billion dollars.
Just how that power can corrupt was evidenced last week in a searing criminal indictment by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and a corresponding civil complaint by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. In this hard-core version of Albany's already scandalous pay-to-play culture, two top advisers to former Comptroller Alan Hevesi allegedly shook down major firms and investors seeking business with the pension fund, garnering over $30 million in kickbacks and gifts.
...
The sweep of this indictment, how-ever, leads to the conclusion that those reforms aren't enough - that more fundamental changes are needed. Albany must finally enact public campaign financing for statewide officials. And to reassure taxpayers that the pension fund has the best possible oversight, a task force must evaluate whether there should be a board of trustees.
...
Whether New York should change its sole trustee arrangement needs to be examined. What doesn't need to wait is campaign financing. Not needing millions of dollars to run reduces the temptation to abuse the office.
Since DiNapoli took office, he has been recommending public financing for comptroller races. His proposal would cap spending in the primary and general election campaigns and allow the candidates to get $6 in public funding for every $1 raised. This still requires the candidates to solicit contributions of more than $1 million in private funds. It's a start.
The Morris indictment, however, should spark support for public financing for all statewide races. In the past two years, Gov. David A. Paterson, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver have all supported campaign financing reform, if not outright public financing. Which ones will now take ownership of the movement for campaign reform - Paterson? Silver? Or Smith?
Attorney General Cuomo just hung a "For Sale" sign for all to see on Albany.Now, we need to see who's going to take it down.
The three men now running our state government have talked a good game for years on enacting significant and meaningful campaign finance reform. Now that the largest obstacle to achieving those reforms, the late GOP majority in the state Senate, has been removed, it's put up or shut up time.
The people of New York deserve nothing less than full public financing of campaigns. It could very well be the best money we've ever spent.
Your telephone is ringing, Governor Paterson. Pick it up.
The recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case Davis v. FEC, in which SCOTUS struck down the so-called "millionaire's amendment" portion of federal campaign finance law under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as "McCain-Feingold," has raised concerns that the ruling might render necessary provisions Clean Money, Clean Elections (CMCE) unconstitutional.
The "millionaire's amendment" allowed congressional candidates whose opponents self-finance to a large extent, or who plan to self-finance, to receive donations up to three times the $2,300 limit from any single donor. SCOTUS ruled that it puts an undue burden on the self-financed candidates' right to spend their own money any way they wish, and violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment, as previously ruled in the landmark 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.S. 1).
After reading the actual decision, it is obvious that this ruling is either irrelevant to CMCE, or would similarly render NYC's current campaign finance law worthless. The following arguments explain this view:
That's right, folks. You can help save our democracy by donating not a single red cent. The folks at the thoroughly awesome new org Change-Congress.org are pushing a great new campaign, a "donor strike", if you will.
The idea is quite simple. The campaign asks people to pledge to NOT donate to any federal candidate unless they pledge to support legislation making congressional elections publicly funded, not funded by special interests. The simple, one sentence pledge reads:
I'm pledging not to donate to any federal candidate unless they support legislation making congressional elections citizen-funded, not special-interest funded.
It's long past time that those we send to DC to represent us actually started, ya know, representing us, not the deep pocketed fat cats that seem to get their way time and time again. It's time that our representatives would by default defer to our interests, not those of the folks that bankroll their campaigns. As Congress prepares to divvy the largest fiscal pie in history, this is even more paramount.
Here's Change Congress co-founder Larry Lessig explaining the idea from the green room at the Colbert Report:
And you can help. First, you can help by not donating a penny to those who will not stand with us on the issue of publicly financed campaigns. That goes for all public elections in my book. (Yes, Governor Paterson, Senator Smith and Assemblyman Silver, this means you, too.) You can sign the pledge here. You can also help by spreading the word to your friends and neighbors, but also, perhaps most importantly, to your representatives themselves.
So, sign the pledge, spread the word and don't donate a dime until those we employ to represent our interests and those who wish to do so, publicly state that they are on our side.
It recently occurred to me that if we had a "Clean Elections" system in place in NYC already, the term limits extension would probably have failed.
Under the bill that is before the Council (Intro 803-2008), participating candidates would not be allowed to begin fundraising until December 1. Since the bill was passed on October 23 and signed on November 3, nobody would have started yet. With the [very predictable] uproar following the vote (see "Bloomberg 29"), a lot of people could have raised all the $5 contributions they needed to get public funding -- and a lot of incumbents who voted to extend term limits would have been very nervous. If that had made a difference to even two second-term Council members, plus the two first-termers who switched at the last moment, that's the ball game.
Something to think about as the Clean Elections Act gains traction. Meanwhile, anyone wishing to help lobby their own representative at either the local or state level should let me know.
With all the sturm and drang over the financial services sector and its incessant (and imprudent) gambling habits bankrupting the world, it is easy to forget that even they, lo, Masters of the Universe that they be, are pawns in the Biggest Game. That game-- or, maybe we should say that endgame-- is about oil.
Just found an excellent site that you might enjoy, that offers automated stat tools to help you to visualize federal electeds and their relationships to the Lords of Oil.
Check it out
Of course, no surprise who the Most Oil-favored Presidential Candidate is:
"Drill, baby, drill."
The site has a lot of excellent information... and also good organizing tools. You can look up relationships among legislators and oil company contributions in groups, or, by individual elected. For instance, if you wanted to get across how much money Randy "da Weasel" Kuhl takes from Da Bosses, you could print up a stack of these to give away:
This site was "Web Tool of the Week" at the incomparable Organic Consumers' Association ("Campaigning for Health, Justice, Sustainability, Peace and Democracy")... those folks who also bothered to report that "United Nations Reprimands Monsanto for Trying To Take Over the World's Food Supply"... more here.
Stay alert... but don't lose your sense of humor! A little vinegar beats getting pickled... or joining the Depression.
Today, Citizen Action NY released a report documenting how contributions to influential Republican NYS Senators, Senate Leadership and party Committee coffers is allowing insurance companies to jack rates NYers pay, while pocketing record profits.
Now, I'm a cynic when it comes to NYS Legislature's pay-to-play system. But, even I was shocked by this report, titled "The High Cost of "Pay-to-Play": Health Insurance Contributions Drive Up Insurance Rates".
Partly because the dollars contributed were so skewed-- way more to the Republicans in the Senate, who obligingly block legislation from leaving the Insurance Committee, chaired by #1 recipient of largess, Jim Seward. You really owe it to yourself to look at the whole thing. But, if you can't, at least check out the press release here
Here is what I think the money quote is, as to the report:
"Our report suggests that health insurance company campaign contributions explain why rate
regulation and other important health insurance consumer protections are not passing the
Legislature," said Scharff. "We are tired of wondering what matters more, the donors or the voters.
New York State must follow in the footsteps of Connecticut and pass Clean Elections, a voluntary
system of full public financing."
...and then, here is what to do about it:
In 2008, the Assembly passed A.11507, which would create a strong public funding system that would
give candidates four public dollars for every dollar raised in contributions of $250 or less from New
York State residents. Democratic Minority Leader Malcolm Smith of Queens has introduced a full
public funding bill in the State Senate (S.7175A) with 17 co-sponsors. The bill is modeled on a law
passed by Connecticut in 2005 that the New York Times called "an instant model for other
statehouses."
Malcolm's comin' out here to the country for BBQ this Sunday, so, you know he is gonna be hearing about it from me.... me, and fellow Clean Elections fan, Don Barber, no doubt.
One area that has not been front-and-center following the release of campaign finance filings is the fate of the warchests of two of the former three men in a room who are either recently resigned (Spitzer) or about to leave (Bruno-- he is said to be leaving the Senate on Friday).
In the category of "he's finally doing what I tell him to" (could have benefitted by catching on to that earlier, though), Eliot Spitzer is not going to use his no-longer-needed-for-campaigning campaign funds for personal expenses on the thin but legal fiction that he might one day run for some office. More than 1.5 million dollars will be or has already been returned to donors.
Now, Bruno has about the same amount of money last I looked (ok, you geeks! fill in the precise numbers for me in comments). What is he doing as he "rides off into the sunset"? OH, how, well, very Bruno of him! He is giving six million dollars of our tax money to Saratoga Springs, and NONE of his "own"! Take my nifty "What should Bruno do with his campaign warchest" poll on the flip!
There is breaking news that Tom Golisano is intending to bankroll a new 527 group to "shake up" the NYS Senate. The report says that he will be targetting particular races, and giving a cool 1 million per race.
As we don't have any campaign finance reform, this is big news. The report is crediting "unnamed sources close to Golisano," but being pretty specific.
Golisano will be supporting Erie County Legislator Kathy Konst (D) in her bid to unseat State Sen. Dale Volker (R-Erie), former boxer Joe Mesi (D) in his primary bid to succeed retiring Sen. Mary Lou Rath (R-Erie) and former State Sen. Rick Dollinger (D-Monroe) in his bid to unseat Sen. Joe Robach (R-Monroe), though Golisano is unlikely to announce these specific candidates at his press conference next week.
Robert, this is going to mess with your rankings!
What does it mean that billionaire Golisano is picking up where Eliot Spitzer left off on the bankrolling-Senate-challengers stuff?
West Queens Independent Democratic Club, and Citizen Action of NY
Invite you to a Panel Discussion:
Clean Elections and the Movement for Social Justice Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 7:00 PM
All Saints Church in Sunnyside, Queens
(43-12 46th Street, Sunnyside, NY 11104, #7 local train to 46th Street)
CLEAN ELECTIONS PUTS POWER BACK WHERE IT BELONGS
IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE
Panel Discussion Will Include:
The Fight for Universal Healthcare through Clean Elections
Clean Elections: A Civil Rights Necessity
Power and the Rent Wars: Why Are Tenants Losing?
Clean Elections Here and Now
Why Full Public Financing of Elections? Clean Money/Clean Elections is a full public financing system for election campaigns under which candidates who agree to limit spending, not take any private interest money, and collect only a limited number of small, individual contributions from their constituents, can qualify for a set amount of public funds to run their campaigns.
Clean Elections levels the playing field, focuses on the needs and interests of the voters, and is a common-sense solution to restoring democracy.
Co-sponsored by: Democracy for NYC, Met Council on Housing, Metro NY Healthcare for All Campaign, Mitchell-Lama Residents Coalition, West Queens Greens, Long Island City Alliance,Democracy Matters, Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens, New Visions Democratic Club
On Monday, Citizen Action of New York will hold a press conference with Clean Elections supporters; New York City Assembly Members, State Senators and others to make public the results of a Zogby poll which shows the overwhelming support among New Yorkers for full public funding of campaigns for New York State (Clean Money, Clean Elections).
The poll was conducted with a sampling of New Yorkers throughout the State, and shows the overwhelming support among New Yorkers for full public funding of campaigns! New Yorkers know that all of the movements for social justice- from tenants' rights and affordable housing to healthcare to environmental protection- are affected by the influence of private money. New Yorkers want to change this. New Yorkers want Clean Elections now.
For all of us involved in this struggle, we understand how this issue affects our lives every day -- this is the time to let Albany know that New Yorkers really do get it.
INFORMATION
When: Monday, April 28th 2008
* Time: 12 Noon
* Where: City Hall in Manhattan (in front of the steps)
* Why: To make public a Zogby Poll which shows that New Yorkers Overwhelmingly support Full Public Funding of Elections for New York State.
* Who: Legislators both in the NY State Assembly and Senate, Citizen Action of New York, Coalition Partners and Community Activists
Please show your support for Clean Elections -- join us at City Hall on Monday!
Pay raises for New York's 212 legislators have to come with this essential condition. The legislators have to do their part to reform state government. That means giving up the power to draw their own districts and imposing much tougher campaign finance laws. Until the Legislature agrees to such reforms, it's an institution that defies the very spirit of democracy and remains committed to the re-election of its own members above all else. It's because legislators control the redistricting process, and benefit from notoriously weak campaign finance laws, that it takes either unspeakable scandal and or criminal indictment to vote an incumbent out of office -- if even then.
