January, 21 2010, 11:16am EDT
Citizens United Opinion Widens Corporate 'Personhood' Rights
WASHINGTON
Today's Supreme Court decision in Citizen's United vs. Federal Election
Commission will significantly expand the role that the most powerful
corporations play in election financing. (Click here to
download a PDF of the decision.)
In a shocking burst of
judicial activism, the Supreme Court decided that corporations should be
treated in the same manner as ordinary citizens and be allowed to spend the
massive amounts of money they accumulate on direct attack ads for or against
Members of Congress.
"This egregious decision turns back the clock on over 60
years of precedent," said Lisa
Gilbert, Democracy Advocate for the U.S.
Public Interest Research Group.
"A corporation is
not, nor has it ever been, a person with voting rights. Corporations are not
your neighbors, they cannot get married, they cannot die, and a corporation is
not part of "We the People," she added. "It is essential that we fix this
misstep by the courts, before we see the landscape of elections financing
washed away in a raging flashflood of corporate money."
Lifting the ban on
corporate money could further diminish the public voice in a system that
already favors monied special interests, and will certainly lessen the public
trust in our officials.
U.S. PIRG is working in
concert with the White House and Senate and House Leadership to help move a
legislative fix to slam shut the floodgates that today's decision has opened.
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
LATEST NEWS
'Educators Are Nation Builders': Sanders Bill Would Ensure Minimum $60K Salary for Public School Teachers
"The situation has become so absurd that the top 15 hedge fund managers on Wall Street make more money in a single year than every kindergarten teacher in America combined."
Mar 09, 2023
Demanding an end to "the international embarrassment" of low teacher pay in the United States, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced legislation to guarantee a minimum salary for public school educators of $60,000 per year, moving to fulfill a pledge he made during his 2020 presidential campaign.
The Vermont Independent senator called on the federal government to take accountability for chronic staffing shortages in school districts across the country, which he said is linked to the fact that "the starting pay for teachers in almost 40% of our nation's school districts is less than $40,000 a year" and that the average weekly wage of a public school teacher has gone up by just $29 in the past 30 years, adjusting for inflation.
More than half of the nation's schools are understaffed, according to the National Center on Education Statistics, and Sanders noted in a fact sheet about his proposal that "hundreds of thousands of public school teachers have to work two or three jobs during the school year to make ends meet." A recent report by the Teacher Salary Project found that 17% of educators work part-time in retail, restaurants, or in the gig economy to supplement their meager incomes.
Sanders, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, called the statistic "simply unacceptable."
"The situation has become so absurd that the top 15 hedge fund managers on Wall Street make more money in a single year than every kindergarten teacher in America combined—over 120,000 teachers," said the senator. "Wages for public school teachers are so low that in 36 states, the average public school teacher with a family of four qualifies for food stamps, public housing, and other government assistance programs. We have got to do better than that."
The Pay Teachers Act of 2023 would significantly increase investments in public education, beyond teacher salaries—tripling Title I-A funding for schools with high percentages of low-income students and funding for rural education programs; providing an additional $1 billion for the Bureau of Indian Education; and investing in grant programs to improve teacher preparation and development, among other investments.
States would be required to establish a "minimum salary for teachers" of at least $60,000 per year, with increases throughout their career, and to ensure teachers are paid "a livable and competitive annual salary" that's comparable to professionals with similar education requirements.
"Educators are nation builders," said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.7 educators. "They have a vital role in educating and caring for our next generation. But they are neither treated nor paid commensurate with that role. Teachers earn nearly 24% less than similarly educated professionals, and when adjusted for inflation, many [earn] less than they were making a decade ago."
"Even with their need to take second jobs, educators spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on supplies, snacks, books, and other items for students," she added. "Chairman Bernie Sanders's bill, the Pay Teachers Act, will help close the pay gap by significantly increasing federal investments in public schools and raising annual teacher salaries."
Co-sponsors of the Pay Teachers Act include Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Alex Padilla of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Peter Welch of Vermont.
Ellen Sherratt, board president of the Teacher Salary Project, applauded the legislation and lawmakers who are"fighting for teacher salary levels that are professional."
Sanders introduced the legislation a month after holding a town hall with labor leaders and teachers from across the country regarding chronic low pay in the field, where educators talked about completing hours of work per week outside of the school day for no extra pay, purchasing snacks for low-income students, and facing barriers to working in schools that have many open teaching positions and have resorted to hiring people without teaching qualifications.
"Students of every color, background, and ZIP code deserve qualified and caring educators who are dedicated and have the resources to uncover the passions and potential of every child," said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association (NEA), as Sanders introduced the bill Thursday. "America's schools are facing a five-alarm crisis because of the educator shortages that have been decades in the making and exacerbated by the pandemic. Together, we must recruit large numbers of diverse educators into the profession and retain qualified and experienced educators in our schools to support our students in learning recovery and thriving in today's world. To do that, we must have competitive career-based pay to recruit and retain educators."
"On behalf of the three million members of the National Education Association, I thank Chairman Sanders for introducing the Teacher Pay Act," she added. "We urge senators to support educators and cosponsor this commonsense legislation that invests in our students, educators, and public schools."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Madness': Biden Requests Record $886 Billion Military Budget
"Continuing to throw this much money at weapons, war, and defense contractor profits is unacceptable," said one critic.
Mar 09, 2023
President Joe Biden unveiled a budget blueprint Thursday that requests $886.4 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2024, pushing for a nearly $30 billion increase over current outlays as progressives demand cuts to the bloated and notoriously fraud-ridden Pentagon.
The president's budget proposes $842 billion for the Pentagon alone, including nearly $38 billion for widely criticized efforts to "modernize" the United States' massive nuclear arsenal.
Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen and a vocal critic of excessive military spending, said Thursday that Biden's request for an $886 billion budget is "madness."
"That's a jump of $28 billion from the current year," Weissman noted. "The increase of $28 billion is more than twice the entire EPA budget."
Weissman argued that funneling more money into the Pentagon's coffers "makes the U.S. weaker, not stronger."
"It means we are weaker on healthcare, weaker on poverty, weaker on fairness and equity, weaker on climate, weaker on pandemics, weaker on diplomacy," he added.
The president's military budget request is part of a sprawling $6.8 trillion framework that was largely praised by progressives for its proposed tax hikes on the rich and large corporations—revenue from which would be used to fund Biden's plan to bolster Medicare and increase spending on Medicaid, public housing, and childcare.
But with austerity-obsessed Republicans in control of the House, much of the president's budget is dead on arrival.
However, recent history shows Congress is almost certain to build on Biden's military spending request.
Last year, lawmakers agreed on a bipartisan basis to add $45 billion to the president's topline proposal, bringing total military spending to $858 billion for fiscal year 2023.
"The proposed Pentagon topline level makes no sense," Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen's executive vice president, said of Biden's new budget request. "There is no excuse for our country's reckless overspending on the Pentagon, and the FY24 proposal continues this dangerous trajectory."
"The Defense Department has never once passed an audit and is infamous for wasting funds with impunity," Gilbert continued. "The president's proposal would bring U.S. military spending to its highest level in history at an astronomical $886 billion. Continuing to throw this much money at weapons, war, and defense contractor profits is unacceptable."
"It's telling that as families struggle and see support they had during the pandemic evaporate, the Pentagon, which has never passed an audit, continues to get a budget windfall."
A fact sheet put out by the White House on Thursday states that the president's budget "prioritizes China as America's pacing challenge" and "supports investments to accelerate critical weapons and munitions production lines; develop capabilities like long-range strike, undersea, hypersonic, and autonomous systems; and increase resiliency of our space architectures."
While the White House claimed Biden's military budget would help the world confront "pressing global challenges," Sara Haghdoosti of Win Without War countered that "more F-35s aren't going to solve climate change or make sure families can afford basic supplies like eggs."
"It's telling that as families struggle and see support they had during the pandemic evaporate, the Pentagon, which has never passed an audit, continues to get a budget windfall," said Haghdoosti.
In an analysis of the president's request, William Hartung of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft noted that when accounting for "likely emergency military aid packages for Ukraine later this year plus the potential tens of billions of dollars in congressional add-ons," total U.S. military spending could balloon to around $950 billion for the fiscal year that begins on October 1.
"The Pentagon doesn't need more spending. It needs more spending discipline, tied to a realistic strategy that sets clear priorities and acknowledges that some of the greatest risks we face are not military in nature," Hartung wrote. "Today's announcement is just the opening gambit in this year's debate over the Pentagon budget. Hopefully critics of runaway spending will have more traction this year than has been the case for the past several years."
"If not," he added, "$1 trillion in annual military spending may be just around the corner, at great cost to taxpayers and to the safety and security of the country as a whole."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fearing Future Probes of US Atrocities, Pentagon Blocks ICC From Russian War Crimes Evidence
"The Ukrainian people deserve accountability. By blocking the sharing of evidence with the ICC, the administration, contrary to its stated position, is undermining it," said one expert.
Mar 09, 2023
The Pentagon is helping to shield Russia from International Criminal Court accountability for its atrocities in Ukraine, fearing such a reckoning could set a precedent allowing the tribunal to prosecute U.S. war crimes, a report published Wednesday revealed.
According toThe New York Times, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III and other Pentagon brass are blocking the Biden administration from sharing evidence of Russian war crimes in Ukraine gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies with the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the objections of officials in those agencies, as well as in the State and Justice departments.
Neither Russia, the United States, nor Ukraine are party to the Rome Statue, the treaty governing the ICC. However, according to "current and former officials briefed on the matter" who were interviewed by the
Times, Austin and others are wary of the Hague tribunal targeting the crimes of countries outside its jurisdiction. Ukraine last year accepted the ICC's jurisdiction so the court could open an investigation of Russia's conduct during the invasion.
"Basically, we want others punished, but not ourselves."
"The Pentagon is flouting the rest of the U.S. government to try to block sending evidence of Russian war crimes in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court," tweeted human rights expert Kenneth Roth. "It fears a precedent: prosecuting non-parties on the territory of governments that accept the ICC."
Author and war correspondent Megan K. Stack wrote on Twitter that "basically, we want others punished, but not ourselves."
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)—whose resolution urging accountability for Russian war criminals and encouraging ICC member states to investigate documented and alleged atrocities unanimously passed the Senate last year—told the Times' Charlie Savage that the Pentagon "opposed the legislative change—it passed overwhelmingly—and they are now trying to undermine the letter and spirit of the law."
"It seems to me that [Department of Defense] is the problem child here, and the sooner we can get the information into the hands of the ICC the better off the world will be."
Documented and alleged war crimes committed by Russian forces and contractors in Ukraine include—but are not limited to—
massacres and other murders of civilians and soldiers; indiscriminate attacks on densely populated areas; attacking critical civilian infrastructure; bombing hospitals and shelters; torture; rape and sexual enslavement of women and children; and stealing children.
American troops and contractors have perpetrated each of those war crimes in U.S. attacks, invasions, occupations, and peacekeeping operations in the years since the ICC was established in 1998.
President Joe Biden has
called Russian President Vladimir Putin a "war criminal" and demanded he be tried for Russia's atrocities in Ukraine. The Biden administration and Congress even explored ways of helping the ICC prosecute Russian war crimes without the U.S. being subjected to the tribunal's authority.
As Savage noted:
Lawmakers enacted two laws aimed at increasing the chances that Russians would be held accountable for war crimes in Ukraine.
One was a stand-alone bill expanding the jurisdiction of American prosecutors to charge foreigners for war crimes committed abroad. The other, a provision about the International Criminal Court embedded in the large appropriations bill Congress passed in late December, received little attention at the time.
But that provision was significant. While the U.S. government remains prohibited from providing funding and certain other aid to the court, Congress created an exception that allows it to assist with "investigations and prosecutions of foreign nationals related to the situation in Ukraine, including to support victims and witnesses."
"The Ukrainian people deserve accountability," Rosie Berman, a project manager at the advocacy group Center for Civilians in Conflict, asserted via Twitter. "By blocking the sharing of evidence with the ICC, the administration, contrary to its stated position, is undermining it."
Under a law signed by former President George W. Bush, not only is the U.S. Congress barred from funding the ICC or from providing other assistance to the court, but the U.S. may use "all means necessary and appropriate"—including invading NATO ally the Netherlands—to secure the release of any U.S. or allied personnel held by or on behalf of the tribunal.
In March 2020 the ICC, then led by Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, determined that an investigation into documented and alleged war crimes committed by all sides in the war in Afghanistan, and at secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, could proceed.
In retaliation, the Trump administration slapped sanctions on Bensouda and other ICC lawyers and investigators, as well as on journalists who provide evidence of U.S. war crimes. A federal judge later blocked former President Donald Trump's executive order authorizing sanctions.
"If we oppose investigations into countries, like our own, that haven't joined the ICC, how can we support an investigation into Russia, another country that hasn't joined the court?"
In September 2021, human rights defenders were outraged when the ICC, under new Prosecutor Karim Khan, said the investigation would focus only on potential war crimes perpetrated by the Taliban and Islamic State in Afghanistan, while excluding U.S. and allied atrocities.
Last April, progressive U.S.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced a resolution calling on the United States to join the ICC, as well as bills that would have repealed the so-called Hague Invasion Act and codified the Office of Global Criminal Justice Act so that the State Department can more effectively respond to crimes against humanity.
"If we oppose investigations into countries, like our own, that haven't joined the ICC, how can we support an investigation into Russia, another country that hasn't joined the court?" Omar asked at the time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.