Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Cities and States are Sticking It to Citizens United
From courthouses to statehouses, the pro-corporate ruling is under pressure.
The Supreme Court may have declared in Citizens United v. the FEC that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, but that doesn’t mean cities and states have to be happy about it.
(Image by watchingfrogsboil)
They’re expressing their disagreement on an increasing number of battlegrounds, with Citizens United under challenge in courts, in city council meetings, in state legislatures, on ballots, and in the streets.
Dissension in the Courts
Some of the most interesting recent action has been in the courts, with lower courts—including a state Supreme Court and a federal appeals court—taking on Citizens United.
-Justice James C. Nelson
In Montana, the state Supreme Court upheld a longstanding law limiting corporate spending in politics. A lower court had held that Citizens United invalidated the Corrupt Practices Act, a law passed by citizens’ ballot initiative in 1912, when it was common practice for the copper industry to bribe state politicians. Unwilling to lose a basic, century-old protection against corruption, the state appealed the issue to the Montana Supreme Court, which on Dec. 30 allowed the law to stand.
For over 100 years, Montana has had an electoral system that preserves the integrity of the political process, encourages full participation, and safeguards against corruption,” said Attorney General Steve Bullock, who argued the state’s case. “The Supreme Court’s decision upholds that system and is truly a victory for all Montanans.”
The decision holds that Montana—for a host of reasons, from its history of corrupt industries to its thinly spread population—has a compelling interest in keeping the law. “If the statute has worked to preserve a degree of political and social autonomy, is the State required to throw away its protections?” asked Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing for the majority.
Even Justice James C. Nelson, who dissented, did so regretfully. “While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the Supreme Court’s decision,” he wrote. “And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it.”
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took a similar stand when, in late December, it upheld a 2006 New York City law that, among other things, bans lobbyists from giving gifts to City officials and requires them to disclose all fundraising and consulting activities. A group of plaintiffs challenging the law hoped it would be invalidated under Citizens United; the court dismissed their lawsuit, upholding the City’s right to put limits on political contributions and prevent “pay-to-play” schemes.
Judge Guido Calabresi, in a concurring opinion, explained his reasoning for maintaining limits on corporate lobbying: “If an external factor, such as wealth, allows some individuals to communicate their political views too powerfully, then persons who lack wealth may, for all intents and purposes, be excluded from the democratic dialogue.”
From Cities and States to the U.S. Constitution
Though lower courts can take stands against it, the Supreme Court’s ruling—that money is constitutionally protected free speech and that corporations are legal persons entitled to such protections—is final. If the Montana and New York City cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, the lower court rulings are likely to be reversed; Montana and New York City would quickly see the end of their hard-won protections.
That’s why the New York City Council on Wednesday joined a group of other cities (including Los Angeles, Boulder, Albany, Oakland, and Madison) in asking Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The resolution declares support for an amendment saying “that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of protections or ‘rights’ of natural persons, specifically so that the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.”
The same day, California lawmakers introduced a similar resolution in the state legislature.
Meanwhile, activists are gearing up for the upcoming 2-year anniversary of the ruling, planning rallies on the steps of the Supreme Court and federal courthouses across the country.
It won’t be easy to stop big money from undermining our democracy. But momentum is building. The desire for a functioning democracy, writes Judge Calabresi in his concurring opinion for the 2nd Circuit, “is, I believe, something that is so fundamental that sooner or later it is going to be recognized. Whether this will happen through a constitutional amendment or through changes in Supreme Court doctrine, I do not know. But it will happen.”
21 Comments so far
Show AllA basic economic principle is that graft must exceed bribes. Else, the whole purpose is defeated.
Trylon
In the lawlessness of the current corporate-owned government of the United States of Global Corporate Domination, all three branches are deliberately FAILING to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America because they have sworn allegiance (through their corrupt actions) to the USGCD.
The so-called Supreme Court is now a corporate police group.
The so-called Congress of representatives and senators is now a private corporate contracting agency.
The so-called president is a CEO who implements the wishes of the Wall Street trustees.
They all know who they are working for.
The biggest problem is that the majority of voters do not know who they are working for and they continue to give them their approval.
There is no good reason to continue pretending that the USA still exists. It has been sold to the USGCD Inc.
The pledge of allegiance and the flag are lies.
Excllent post Birdbrain. It all smacks of Taylor Caldwell's "Devil's Advocate".
Also, every state, every county, every city and town in the USA, is now a separate corporation, as are the thousands of special interest lobbying groups, pension plans, etc. This is by intent. These "corporations" now are the principle stock holders in Google, Mircrosoft, and all of the top earning corporate investments in the world. It will take a mighty effort by the people to kill this monster.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkfMuvVuETQ
@ Trylon:
i totally agree (except that you remain the ONLY one) with a comment you posted yesterday that "we the people" need to form our own constitutional conventions. i'd like to see small groups comprised a few hundred local yokels in each to go through the constitution with a fine tooth comb. the participants might form work shops to present ideas to their general assembly. then representatives from each meet at the district, precinct or county level to combine and hone their presentation in a state-wide people's convention.
@ Birdbrain Alley
(quote)"The so-called president is a CEO who implements the wishes of the Wall Street trustees. They all know who they are working for. The biggest problem is that the majority of voters do not know who they are working for and they continue to give them their approval."(end quote)
yep, the majority believe the myth that international business "leaders" and government policy deciders work in an adversarial way therefore blind to the big picture of this mutually enriching collusion. they live in a world that's ALL ABOUT MONEY and power. any time protecting the money (continuously maximising profits) becomes top priority, morality, humanity and the common good get trampled underfoot; eventually pushed off the table all together. as long as we the people expect those who profit most from a system that well serves them to make the necessary changes, the disappointment continues.
we need a goal for a sustainable ALL inclusive world society and i think our first mistake may be in the wording of the preamble, "establish Justice". in my mind justice IS a Natural STATE of BEING. once our species attempts to write laws without respect for physical law for just us humans, we throw ourselves out of balance with the very forces which sustain Life. presuming our "rights" supersede the rights of the "lower" beings to continuously evolve and adapt, we inadvertently establish an unnatural anthropocentric hierarchy and yet wonder why it's so difficult to realise equality under our laws written in the gated concrete jungle meant to hold Nature at bay.
here some article one constitutoinal snippets i'd like to readdress post haste:
1) Section 2 The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the *sole power of impeachment*.
2) Section 5 (snip) Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, *excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy*; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.
3) Section 6 The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
4) Section 8 (snip) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, *unless when in cases of rebellion* or invasion the public safety may require it.-- expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
those who self-define as privileged cannot so much as comprehed "equality under the law"!
I believe that what will be required is a new economic paradigm, a shift from a consumer society to a conserver society. Only such a shift will allow us to create a truly sustainable economy and society. Our present path is relentlessly taking our children and grandchildren over a cliff.
To survive, humanity needs real political and economic democracy based on the principle of conservation of energy and the most efficient use of resources.
The world's resources are finite. We cannot continually "grow the pie", as conventional wisdom warrants. WE must divide it up more evenly, and expend our resources more wisely. The alternative is extinction.
The proposed amendment, “that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of protections or ‘rights’ of natural persons, specifically so that the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech,” is deficient and extremely flawed. It explicitly grants to corporations all the rights of a person except the expenditure of money.
Here's my suggestion for an alternative:
"Corporations are not persons and have no rights protected by this Constitution or the constitutions of the various states. Furthermore, money and other limited resources such as broadcast time and bandwidth are the means through which speech is distributed, but they are not speech itself. Congress and state governments have the power to regulate the share of such resources utilized by any person, as long as no person is prohibited from utilizing a portion of such resource. A medium that may be reproduced in unlimited quantities is not a limited resource. Such media include but are not limited to writings or pictures on paper, magnetic, optical or other physical media."
The Thomas Jefferson option! Why isn't that on the table with progressives? Just say the power of the purse and defunding judges who make silly decisions or are predisposed to. Jefferson applied it to midnight judges appointed by his predeccessor.
I think everyone here at CD needs to read this:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/06
We're being played by the huge, too big to fail financial institutions. The corporations are being played as well. No wonder no one in government has the balls to constrain them.
It is becoming quite apparent that Citizens United is this era's Dred Scott decision.
Either Dred Scott or Plessy vs Ferguson.
While Plessy vs. Ferguson is a repellent legal low light all it's own, I would argue for Dred Scott because it had a wider effect (as has Citizens United), as it virtually guaranteed that the Civil War would take place. Citizens United has guaranteed an ugly protracted fight against corporate money and power as well.
There is a fundamental flaw in the US legal system where people appointed to courts are allowed to use obscure references and definitions to confuse the people and effectively place the interests of an elite minority above the interests of the vast majority. It's a simple question of whether a society is going to have majority rule or minority rule. It should be pretty obvious that a legal system that upholds minority rule is not legitimate. A key corruption perpetrated is the deliberate actions taken to propagate legal processes while avoiding the necessity of clarifying the fundamental choice the people have throughout the process: Are we going to have majority rule or not? You can't sit on the fence. You can't pretend. You have to choose, and when you choose majority rule you then have to pick up the sledgehammer and use it against the forces of minority rule. The news today is that the people are finally getting this general point. The courts are merely a tool that if not serving the people may legitimately be smashed up and burned as firewood.
Rule by the majority can be just as tyrannical as a despot. Let's not forget that some rights are supposed to be guaranteed to everyone regardless of how unpopular the person is or his actions are.
Yes, that's very true and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
At the same time, the history of the courts actually protecting the rights of the individuals against majoritarian tyranny in the United States is really very spotty. It was only from the 1950s onwards that this became an idea that was taken seriously (and even then, it was mostly accidental). For most of this country's history courts haven't defended the rights of the people against either the wealthy or against bigots-and the Roberts court is not as much an aberration as much as its a return to the status quo.
“If an external factor, such as wealth, allows some individuals to communicate their political views too powerfully, then persons who lack wealth may, for all intents and purposes, be excluded from the democratic dialogue.”
..............We already have been excluded, Judge. Thanks for your well- constructed and reality based comment.
..............No taxation without representation!
ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 20TH, MOVE TO AMEND volunteers across the USA will OCCUPY the Courts. Let's join them! http://movetoamend.org/get-involved. We need to get involved to overturn Citizens United.
Citizens United is far less onerous than the more recently passed NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) that strips Constitutional protections from real persons. If the Roberts Court could approve an aberration like Citizens United, as NDAA cases wend upwards to said Court, who thinks it will support the rights of individuals? What is really needed is a Movement to Impeach Roberts and all who voted for Citizens United. I recall that back in the late 50s there was a John Birch Society effort to Impeach Earl Warren, complete with an expensive billboard campaign. What goes around comes around.
-30-
Both Citizens United and NDAA are each odious, each in its own way.
One puts democracy effectively out of the reach of the ordinary citizen, the other effectively eliminates the future rights of the ordinary citizen, including the most basic right of Habeas Corpus.
The five justices of the Supreme Court who voted for the Citizens United ruling should be impeached for gross failure to protect the Constitution from enemies domestic and foreign.
Hats off to Montana from this democrat. I do love the western part of the state, eastern part reminds me too much of Arizona except much colder