January, 21 2010, 12:50pm EDT

Shed a Tear for Democracy: Supreme Court's Citizens United Will Unleash Flood of Corporate Money in Elections; Public Citizen Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Decision
Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
WASHINGTON
Note: Public Citizen played a key role in the Citizens United
case; Public Citizen attorney Scott Nelson was a member of the legal
team that represented the key congressional sponsors of the
McCain-Feingold law.
Shed a tear for our democracy.
Today, in the case Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court
has ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend
unlimited amounts of money to influence election outcomes.
Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune
500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state
capitals and city halls. Today, the Supreme Court tells these corporate
giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.
In eviscerating longstanding rules prohibiting corporations from
using their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant
corporations to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes.
Corporations are sure to accept the invitation.
The predictable result will be corporate money flooding the
election process; huge targeted campaigns by corporations and their
front groups attacking principled candidates who challenge parochial
corporate interests; and a chilling effect on candidates and election
officials, who will be deterred from advocating and implementing
policies that advance the public interest but injure deep-pocket
corporations.
Because today's decision is made on First Amendment constitutional
grounds, the impact will be felt not only at the federal level, but in
the states and localities, including in state judicial elections.
In one sense, today's decision was a long time in coming. Over the
past 30 years, the Supreme Court has created and steadily expanded the
First Amendment protections that it has afforded for-profit
corporations.
But in another sense, the decision is a startling break from
Supreme Court tradition. Even as it has mistakenly equated money with
speech in the political context, the court has long upheld regulations
on corporate spending in the electoral context. The Citizens United
decision is also an astonishing overreach by the court. No one thought
the issue of corporations' purported right to spend money to influence
election outcomes was at stake in this case until the Supreme Court so
decreed. The case had been argued in lower courts, and was originally
argued before the Supreme Court, on narrow grounds related to
application of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The court has invented the idea that corporations have First
Amendment rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth.
There is surely no originalist interpretation to support this outcome,
since the court created the rights only in recent decades. Nor can the
outcome be justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of
the First Amendment. Corporations are state-created entities, not real
people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike
humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their
economic bottom line. Corporate spending on elections defeats rather
than advances the democratic thrust of the First Amendment.
We, the People cannot allow this decision to go unchallenged. We,
the People cannot allow corporations to take control of our democracy.
Public Citizen is going to do everything we can to mitigate the
damage from today's decision, and to overturn this misguided ruling.
First, we must have public financing of elections. Public financing
will give independent candidates a base from which they may be able to
compete against candidates benefiting from corporate expenditures. We
will intensify our efforts to win rapid passage of the Fair Elections
Now Act, which would provide congressional candidates with an
alternative to corporate-funded campaigns before fundraising for the
2010 election is in full swing. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin
(D.-Ill.) and Rep. John Larson (D.-Conn.), the bill would encourage
unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals and provide
candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate
contributions or private contributions in amounts of more than $100.
The proposal has broad support, including more than 110 co-sponsors in
the House.
In the wake of the court's decision, it is also essential that the
presidential public financing system be made viable again. Cities and
states will also need to enact public financing of elections.
Second, we will urge Congress to ensure that corporate CEOs do not
use corporate funds for political purposes, against the wishes of
shareholders. We will support legislation requiring an absolute
majority of shares to be voted in favor, before any corporate political
expenditure is permitted.
These mitigating measures will not be enough to offset today's decision, however. The decision itself must be overturned.
Public Citizen will aggressively work in support of a constitutional
amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to
First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. We do not
lightly call for a constitutional amendment. But today's decision so
imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the
rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional
corrective is demanded.
We are formulating language for possible amendments, asking members
of the public to sign a petition to affirm their support for the idea
of constitutional change, and planning to convene leading thinkers in
the areas of constitutional law and corporate accountability to begin a
series of in-depth conversations about winning a constitutional
amendment.
The Supreme Court has lost its way today. Democracy is rule of the
people - real, live humans, not artificial entity corporations. Now
it's time for the people to reassert their rights.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Tlaib Leads Call for $1.2 Billion in Humanitarian Aid for War-Torn Yemen
"Without a significant increase in American assistance... we fear that 2023 will be a heartbreakingly deadly year for everyday Yemenis," Tlaib and 23 other House Democrats wrote.
Mar 27, 2023
U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib on Monday led two dozen House Democrats in urging Congress to allocate at least $1.2 billion in humanitarian aid for Yemen—whose people have suffered eight years of U.S.-backed Saudi war—in next year's budget.
"As we approach the 8th anniversary of the Yemen war, the country remains stuck in a devastating cycle of conflict and humanitarian crisis that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives," Tlaib (D-Mich.) and 23 other lawmakers wrote in a letter to House Subcommittee on State and Foreign Relations Chair Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Ranking Member Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).
"Yemen has the grim title of the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with over 4 million Yemenis displaced and an estimated 80% of the country's 30 million people reliant upon some form of assistance for their survival," the letter, which was first sent last week, asserts.
The letter's authors lament that "international appeals for assistance for Yemen have consistently [fallen] short of their goals by large margins" and that "the continuous reduction in funding has greatly exacerbated the humanitarian suffering."
The United Nations "has had to close over 75% of its lifesaving programs, and the World Food Program has been forced to cut or reduce food distribution to 8 million people, increasing the number of areas at risk of famine," the letter notes.
"Without a significant increase in American assistance (which we believe would incentivize foreign nations to increase their support in turn), we fear that 2023 will be a heartbreakingly deadly year for everyday Yemenis," the signers assert.
The lawmakers urge Congress to include at least $1.2 billion "for humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts in Yemen" in the budget for fiscal year 2024. They also ask the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development "to develop programming that directly invests in sustainably developing long-term economic opportunities for Yemenis."
Tlaib is one of four dozen bipartisan House lawmakers who last June introduced a War Powers Resolution to end "unauthorized" United States military involvement in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen's civil war.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), along with Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), introduced a similar measure in the Senate. Last December, Sanders withdrew the resolution just before it was slated for a floor vote, while vowing to work with the Biden administration on ending U.S. involvement in the war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Aren't You Guys Tired of Covering This?' Illinois Mass Shooting Survivor Speaks Out in Nashville
"How is this still happening? Why are our children still dying and why are we failing them?"
Mar 27, 2023
A gun control activist who survived last year's massacre at an Illinois July 4th parade spoke out at a police press conference on Monday's mass shooting at a Nashville elementary school to make an impassioned plea for gun control legislation.
"Aren't you guys tired of covering this? Aren't you guys tired of being here and having to cover all these mass shootings?" asked Ashbey Beasley. "I'm from Highland Park, Illinois. My son and I survived a mass shooting over the summer. I am in Tennessee on a family vacation with my son visiting my sister-in-law."
Beasley's comments came as TV news crews were wrapping up coverage of a Metro Nashville Police press conference after authorities announced the murder of six people—three staff members and three 9-year-old children—at the Covenant School by a 28-year-old former student armed with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun.
"I have been lobbying in D.C. since we survived a mass shooting in July," Beasley continued. "I have met with over 130 lawmakers. How is this still happening? Why are our children still dying and why are we failing them?"
"We have to do something. We all have to call our lawmakers and we all have to make our lawmakers make change now," she added. "Or this is gonna keep happening and it's gonna be your kid, and your kid, and your kid, and your kid next."
In a separate interview on CNN, Beasley said that "this is just unacceptable. It's only in America can somebody survive a mass shooting and then go on vacation to visit another person they met through fighting for gun safety and find themselves near another mass shooting."
"Only in America does this happen where we keep seeing this again and again and again," she added, calling for stricter background checks on gun buyers and a ban on assault-style semi-automatic weapons.
Common Dreamsrecently reported on Jackie Matthews, a student during both the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Connecticut and the February Michigan State shooting.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP's Energy Package Slammed as Harmful 'Giveaway to Big Oil'
H.R. 1 "contains more hidden costs that we can count, including more energy waste, more pollution, and a more dangerous future for our kids and grandkids," said one critic.
Mar 27, 2023
As House Republicans prepare to vote on H.R. 1 this week, environmental advocates warned Monday that the sprawling package of fossil fuel-friendly legislation would worsen the climate emergency and biodiversity destruction while saddling U.S. households with higher energy bills.
H.R. 1, misleadingly titled the "Lower Energy Costs Act" and dubbed the "Polluters Over People Act" by opponents, consists of 15 separate bills and a pair of resolutions. As GOP lawmakers made clear at a legislative hearing held last month and through recent amendments, they're seeking to dismantle a wide range of regulations to boost fossil fuel production and exports despite scientists' unequivocal warnings about the need to prohibit new coal, oil, and gas projects to avert the worst effects of the climate crisis.
Environment America explained Monday that if approved, the sweeping proposal introduced earlier this month by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) would, among other things:
- Expand oil and gas drilling on public lands and in the ocean;
- Speed the construction of polluting projects, including gas pipelines, while limiting the ability of the public, private landowners, and states to weigh in;
- Expand mining without requiring companies to clean up or compensate communities for toxic mining waste;
- Exempt many sources of pollution, including petroleum refineries, from some Clean Air Act and hazardous waste requirements;
- Undo bipartisan reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act;
- Lower the rates companies must pay for extraction on public lands and allow non-competitive lease sales; and
- Repeal programs that cut energy waste, including the Methane Emissions Reduction Program and rebates for energy-efficient and electric home appliances.
"This bill leads America in so many wrong directions at once, it's making me dizzy," said Lisa Frank, executive director of Environment America's Washington, D.C. legislative office.
"Instead of protecting the great American outdoors, it gives our public lands away to oil, mining, and gas companies," Frank pointed out. "Instead of cleaning up toxic pollution, it guarantees more drilling and more spilling, on land and in our oceans. And instead of slowing climate change or helping Americans save energy, it increases our dependence on dirty, expensive fuels."
"It's 2023. We have so many better options available to us, from the sun shining down on our roofs to the wind blowing off our shores and across our plains," she added. "Congress should reject this outdated and unnecessary push to sacrifice our lands, waters, and health in the name of energy production."
"Given how unpopular its provisions are, it's not surprising H.R. 1's authors also seek to limit public input and legal challenges to wrongheaded energy projects."
Included in the package is a resolution "expressing the sense of Congress that the federal government should not impose any restrictions on the export of crude oil or other petroleum products" and a bill that would "repeal all restrictions on the import and export of natural gas."
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)—chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security—argued last month that such measures are necessary because President Joe Biden and Democrats on the panel "have advocated for reinstating the crude oil export ban" that was originally enacted in 1975 and rescinded by congressional Republicans and then-President Barack Obama in 2015.
Last year, the Biden administration suggested—but never followed through on—resurrecting the federal ban on crude exports, a move that progressive advocacy groups urged the White House to make to bring down U.S. fuel prices.
While Duncan insisted that "lifting the export ban... has lowered prices," research demonstrates that precisely the opposite has occurred.
Since 2015, oil and gas production in the Permian Basin has surged while domestic consumption has remained steady, triggering a huge build-out of pipelines and other infrastructure that has turned the U.S. into the world's top exporter of fracked gas—intensifying planet-heating emissions, harming vulnerable Gulf Coast communities already overburdened by pollution, and exacerbating pain at the pump.
Matt Casale of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) said Monday that H.R. 1 "hands taxpayers the bill for expanded fossil fuel extraction and toxic waste clean-up, takes resources away from global warming solutions, and limits Americans' freedom to save energy in their own homes."
"Given how unpopular its provisions are, it's not surprising H.R. 1's authors also seek to limit public input and legal challenges to wrongheaded energy projects," said Casale, who directs PIRG's environmental campaigns.
"Our over-reliance on fossil fuels continues to hold us all over a barrel," he continued. "This bill looks for short-term fixes by doubling down on the energy sources of the past but contains more hidden costs that we can count, including more energy waste, more pollution, and a more dangerous future for our kids and grandkids. To protect ourselves now and in the future, we need to think beyond short-term solutions and take steps to end our fossil fuel dependence once and for all."
"To protect ourselves now and in the future, we need to think beyond short-term solutions and take steps to end our fossil fuel dependence once and for all."
Much to the chagrin of voters who put him in office, Biden has not been an enemy of the fossil fuel industry. His administration approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years than the Trump administration did in 2017 and 2018. Just two weeks ago, the White House ignored the scientists it claims to respect and rubber-stamped ConocoPhillips' massive Willow oil project.
Nevertheless, H.R. 1 even includes a resolution expressing disapproval of Biden's 2021 decision to revoke the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline―part of the GOP's push to blame what they deride as "rush-to-green energy policies" for skyrocketing gas prices, a narrative that obscures Big Oil's profiteering amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Meanwhile, as the GOP's deficit hawks threaten to withhold their support for raising the nation's debt limit unless Biden agrees to devastating social spending cuts, the Congressional Budget Office found that H.R. 1 would increase the federal deficit by $2.4 billion from 2023 to 2033.
Given that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has described H.R. 1 as "dead-on-arrival," it's unlikely the legislation will reach Biden's desk. If it does, however, Biden vowed Monday to veto it.
The GOP's energy package would replace "pro-consumer policies with a thinly veiled license to pollute," the White House said in a statement. "It would raise costs for American families by repealing household energy rebates and rolling back historic investments to increase access to cost-lowering clean energy technologies. Instead of protecting American consumers, it would pad oil and gas company profits—already at record levels—and undercut our public health and environment."
"H.R. 1," the White House added, "would take us backward."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.