Democracy North Carolina Blog » Citizens United Case

LOD: Citizens United’s Origins

Bob Hall — Sat, 19 May 2012 22:11:26 +0000

The New Yorker this week has an in-depth account of the manipulations and blunders that inflated a narrow issue before the US Supreme Court into the now infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. The majority opinion didn’t need to make sense – it had 5 of the 9 votes, enough to win; the dissenting views were easily more compelling. “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in dissent. “It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.” Read the article to understand the context of the opinions and significance of one or two appointments to the Supreme Court.

LOD: Mega-Donor Profiles

Bob Hall — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:02:25 +0000

The Charlotte Observer uses research from Democracy North Carolina for an analysis of Duke Energy’s political clout, which would grow even larger after the proposed merger with Progress Energy. “We are not apologetic about what we do in state capitals and Washington,” said Duke spokesperson Tom Williams. “We are a large player and we serve a lot of people. . . . We clearly would be very large and active players in the policy arenas in those six states (Duke and Progress serve) and Washington. Our bottom line is influenced by political policies, and we certainly offer our opinions.” In another profile of mega-donors, CBS News looks at the contributors to Super PACs through the examples of Julian Robertson, the North Carolina native and hedge fund founder who is a major donor to Mitt Romney, and Jeffrey Katzenberg, Hollywood producer and patron of Barack Obama.

LOD: From the Horse’s Mouth

Bob Hall — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 02:03:47 +0000

In this hour-long production, the radio documentary “This American Life” manages to get Washington politicians and lobbyists saying the worst things possible about themselves, political corruption and the all-consuming money chase. Amazing! Who needs more evidence of the need for fundamental change? It begins with the tape of a shakedown fundraising call from a member of Congress to a developer, proceeds with similar candor through a dozen interviews, and ends with Sen. John McCain’s comments about the Supreme Court’s sarcasm and stupidity in the Citizens United case.

LOD: More Sunshine, Please

Bob Hall — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:26:05 +0000

The Center for Responsive Politics follows the “Shadow Money Trail” through the annual reports of foundations and business associations in order to uncover some of the millions spent by the Koch-Pope-Americans for Prosperity network for political advertising – but the source of most of the money remains hidden. What can be done? Even New Bern’s arch-conservative Sun Journal says Congress should pass much tougher disclosure requirements. More sunshine on the flow of money should be required by our General Assembly, too, despite the bad example set by House Speaker Thom Tillis. The Center for Responsive Politics’ posting also provides an update on another way to hold secretive conduits accountable: make the IRS stop giving tax breaks to 501(c)(4) and other entities that launder election donations.

LOD: Super Negative

Bob Hall — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:39:49 +0000

Here’s a sobering statistic from a Washington Post report: “Four years ago, just 6 percent of campaign advertising in the GOP primaries amounted to attacks on other Republicans; in this election, that figure has shot up to more than 50 percent, according to an analysis of advertising trends.” Most of the money for the negative ads has come from outside groups, not the candidates’ committees, and it is dominating the election cycle so far, thanks to the Supreme Court’s various rulings that equate buying political influence with free speech. Outside groups feel less accountable for what they say, and media outlets let them get away with over-the-top trash talk. The New York Times has a donor-by-donor chart and USA Today adds analysis of the latest financial reports for Super PACs. The puny showing of the operation supporting Barack Obama’s re-election has led the President and his campaign to shift course and join in the hoax of helping “independent” groups raise mega-dollars to run “uncoordinated” advertising campaigns. The election system is being sucked into an Orwellian world ruled by Supreme Court justices who see corporations as people.

LOD: Leading Reform

Bob Hall — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:47:14 +0000

The New Mexico legislature just passed a resolution calling on Congress to initiate a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. A blog entry from John Nichols of The Nation describes the significance of this action and how it fits into other efforts for an amendment and the larger outcry against corporate domination in politics. The question is what bipartisan group of state legislators in North Carolina will step up to shepherd a similar resolution through the General Assembly? Speaking of leadership, here’s one perspective on President Obama’s recent embrace of the arms race in Super PAC fundraising: We don’t expect him to tie a hand behind his back in the 2012 slugfest, but David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund asks if Obama or some other presidential candidate will at least make a public commitment to be a leader for major reform after the election. Of course, there are multiple ways to demonstrate leadership now, even as they hustle a gazillion dollars for themselves and their alter-ego Super PACs. Back to North Carolina: All the candidates should be asked what they’ll do to attack the cancer worsened by Citizens United, and General Assembly members should be pressed to beef up disclosure of CU-inspired money now.

LOD: Predatory Super PACs

Bob Hall — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:34:07 +0000

Dozens of news stories are telling the horrific impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision on 2012’s election, and we’ve barely begun. Super PACs, billionaires, and front groups for who-knows-what are the oxygen that candidates rely on for their lives. They’ll also have a chokehold on them if they are elected. Election attorney Rick Hasen has a helpful overview of where we are now after Citizens United, and the Campaign Finance Institute adds important background and valuable details. A more responsible Congress would tackle this mess not just through campaign finance regulation but through the tax code. Mega-wealthy “persons” are using tax-exempt vehicles to smash democracy, with no “social welfare” purpose as required by the tax code. It’s past time to tax these entities as predatory commercial enterprises.

LOD: Two Nasties, One Target

Bob Hall — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:48:42 +0000

Here’s a strategy to simultaneously fight nasty political money and the nasty political ads they buy: Go after the broadcasters and make them pull any ad not completely substantiated with hard evidence. As a media expert explains, independent ads don’t enjoy the same protection from a broadcaster’s good-taste test as ads produced by candidates during the election season. Independent groups escape many campaign finance regulations because they’re technically not connected to the candidate. So why not use this distinction to insist that their ads get treated like non-campaign ads and are pulled when they cross the line with exaggerated claims and accusations. Here’s another strategy being tried in the high octane Senate race in Massachusetts. Sen. Scott Brown (R) and challenger Elizabeth Warren (D) have signed an unusual agreement that they will give a charity half the cost of any third-party’s ad attacking his or her opponent – and they’re telling outside groups from Karl Rove’s American Crossroads to the League of Conservation Voters to back off and let the candidates handle their own messaging, with the piles of money their raising themselves. Definitely a model worth watching.

LOD: Small Biz Opposes CU Decision

Bob Hall — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:40:02 +0000

A trio of small business federations today released a survey showing that two thirds of small business owners across the nation believe the Citizens United decision gives big corporations an unfair advantage over them. The Supreme Court decision from January 2010 allows businesses to spend unlimited amounts from their treasury to tell people how to vote. “America’s entrepreneurs feel corporations have an outsized role and say in politics to the detriment of the small business community,” said John Arensmeyer, founder and CEO of Small Business Majority. The Supreme Court’s narrow 5-to-4 majority said campaign spending doesn’t win corporations political friends, or intimidate their enemies, because it must be “independent” of the candidate and can not be given directly to the candidate’s campaign. “Small business owners aren’t stupid,” countered Melanie Collins, owner of Melanie’s Home Childcare in Falmouth, Maine. “We know who wins when corporate heavy hitters can spend all the money they want, as secretively as they want, to influence our country’s elections – and it’s not us.” The survey also shows that by a margin of 7-to-1, small business owners think money plays a negative role in politics.

LOD: Corporations Are Not People

Bob Hall — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:00:26 +0000

The landmark Citizens United v. FEC decision, which gave corporations the political speech rights of people, will celebrate its second anniversary on January 21; its impact only grows worse each day. Jeff Clements has written a great book titled Corporations Are Not People that traces the shocking history of how business interests gained the rights of “we the people.” (Hint: The tobacco industry and its attorneys were deeply involved.) Here’s a link to a lively hour-long video interview with Jeff at a Demos breakfast last week. The book has its own valuable website with a very short video of Jeff with Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC, plus good pieces about “What the corporate takeover of the Constitution means to you,” who’s fighting back, and more.

LOD: Big Apple Shines

Bob Hall — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:41:40 +0000

New York is stepping up to challenge corporate control of elections. New York City already has a pioneering public financing program for its municipal elections. On Wednesday, it joined a growing list of cities by adopting a resolution calling on Congress to start the process for amending the U.S. Constitution to say corporations don’t have the rights of natural persons. Meanwhile, in Albany, Gov. Andrew Cuomo included a robust call for public campaign financing in his State of the State speech. His backing, fulfilling a 2010 campaign pledge, and the pro-reform NY House make the Empire State the likely epicenter for expanding Voter-Owned Elections programs in 2012. A host of nonprofit groups have been working in the state for years; their efforts are paying off.

LOD: MT Judges Slam US Supremes

Bob Hall — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:58:16 +0000

As the second anniversary of Citizens United approaches (Jan. 21), the corruption flowing from that decision is becoming more apparent. The Supreme Court declared that independent groups can not corrupt the political process, but the dominant role of Super PACs in the Republican primary is just the latest evidence that their decision was based on bias, not fact. Now another court has stepped up to tell the Supremes exactly that. The Montana Supreme Court rejected the Citizens United ruling, saying the evidence shows that independent spenders can and do wield enough influence to corrupt politics. “Organizations like WTP [a corporate political group] that act as a conduit for anonymously spending by others represent a threat to the political marketplace,” wrote Mike McGrath, Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court, for the majority. “Clearly the impact of unlimited corporate donations creates a dominating impact on the political process and inevitably minimizes the impact of individual citizens.” Even the dissenting judges in the 5-2 decision upholding Montana law denounced the US Supreme Court. “While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the [U.S.] Supreme Court’s decision,” wrote Justice James C. Nelson, in his dissent. “And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it. For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield enormous power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins: the transition is seamless and overlapping.” If the Montana case gets a fair hearing on appeal at the Supreme Court, it will completely expose that majority’s hypocrisy and corruption of judicial duty.

LOD: Dominatrix of the Year

Bob Hall — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:38:59 +0000

Two commentaries close out the year, each describing a way big money shapes our lives. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, reviews the year with a focus on why Congressional decisions are so out of touch with real needs. Jesse Jackson looks at what’s getting covered over by big money in the presidential campaign.

LOD: MoJo on Dirty Money

Bob Hall — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:49:22 +0000

The first issue of 2012 from Mother Jones has a series of articles dissecting the secretive, seductive direct money that is crippling our entire society. It includes a roadmap for “How to Buy An Elections” and one story (“Occupied Washington”) you can readily access, but the other juicy material requires you to sign in. Worth the connection.

LOD: Mr. Jones v. Citizens United

Bob Hall — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:48:35 +0000

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., Republican member of Congress from eastern North Carolina, is again stepping up to sponsor legislation to reign in the power of big money in politics. In 2010, he co-sponsored the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide a much-needed alternative path for candidates to finance their campaigns. Yesterday, he’s joined Kentucky Democrat US Rep. John Yarmuth in introducing a Constitutional amendment to overcome the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The amendment would say that political spending is not protected by the First Amendment and may be regulated to protect the common good. “Corporate money equals influence, not free speech,” says Yarmuth. The amendment would also establish a system for public financing and make Election Day a federal holiday. If you’re having trouble keeping track of all the proposed amendments to elevate your voting rights over a corporation’s right to buy an election, here’s a handy guide from United Republic: “Idiot’s Guide to the Amendments.”