January, 21 2015, 10:45am EDT
Five Years After Citizens United: We Need a Constitutional Amendment More Than Ever
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Brought Out-of-Control Spending, Super PACs, Dark Money Groups
WASHINGTON
Voices across the country are decrying the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United decision today at rallies, marches, movie showings and lobby days to mark the ruling's fifth anniversary.
The nationwide events highlight growing momentum for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, which gave corporations and the wealthy the green light to spend unlimited sums to influence elections.
Events included a rally in a downtown park in Washington, D.C., to highlight the biggest dark money spender in the 2014 midterms - the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; a press conference on Capitol Hill in which more than a dozen congressional lawmakers introduced measures designed to curb the influence of money in politics; lobby days in Albany, N.Y., and Olympia, Wash.; and a march in New Hampshire. Other events included showings of the movie "Pay 2 Play" in Tulsa, Okla., and Tucson, Ariz.; a rally at the Savannah, Ga., Chamber of Commerce and a house party in Savage, Minn.
"The American people understand the corruption of the political system and its consequences," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, which has been pushing for five years for an amendment to overturn Citizens United and spearheaded the Washington, D.C., rally. "Five years after the Supreme Court handed down the abomination known as Citizens United, we know that our country will not be able to address the great challenges it faces - from putting people to work and raising wages to providing health care to all, from reducing wealth inequality to averting catastrophic climate change, and much more - without ending corporate and super-rich dominance of our elections."
Here's what five years since the court ruling has brought:
- Record spending in elections - $4 billion on the 2014 midterms.
- The advent of super PACs, which can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals.
- The use of dark money groups - trade associations and nonprofit groups set up to funnel money into elections without having to disclose their donors.
- An increase in the use of super PACs and other groups to support a single candidate. Single-candidate super PACs represented 45 percent of all super PACs that spent at least $100,000 during the 2014 election cycle.
- A dramatic increase in the amount of spending by groups not affiliated with campaigns. In 80 percent of competitive 2014 races, outside spenders outspent the candidates -- sometimes by more than double.
Citizens United also brought a positive thing: a grassroots movement that is sweeping the country, demanding the court ruling be overturned with a constitutional amendment. Multiple polls show that the problem of money in politics now is a hot-button issue.
"Americans realize that money in politics is corrosive to democracy, that it enables corporations and the wealthy to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens and makes elected officials more beholden than ever to the outside interests that helped get them elected," Weissman said. Consider:
- Fifty-four U.S. senators voted in the fall to support an amendment.
- More than 5 million people have signed petitions supporting an amendment.
- Sixteen states (PDF) (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia have supported a constitutional amendment. To indicate support, state legislatures either approved a resolution or signed a letter, or voters approved a ballot measure.
- More than 600 cities and towns have backed an amendment.
The constitutional amendment considered last year by the Senate would enable the government to pass laws ending corporate spending on elections, eliminating or curbing outside donations, imposing limits on overall election spending and adopting mandatory systems of small-donor and public financing.
Rallies around the country
Here are some of the key rallies on Jan. 21:
- Washington, D.C.: Hundreds will rally in the park between the White House and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to shine a light on the fact that the Chamber is the biggest secret spender in elections. Speakers will explain how corporate political spending influences a range of issues that affect Americans.
- Albany, New York: Hundreds will rally at the state Capitol and call for New York to support an amendment.
- Augusta, Maine: Hundreds will deliver more than 80,000 petition signatures needed to qualify a clean elections initiative for the ballot.
- Los Angeles: Activists will participate in a March for Democracy from Los Angeles City Hall to the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and drop a banner over the 110 Freeway at rush hour.
- New York City: The makers of the Pay 2 Play documentary will unravel their street-sized Monopoly board at 3:30 p.m. in front of the New York Stock Exchange.
- San Francisco: A march for democracy will be kicked off by the inspirational Khafre Jay, a hiphop artist for change. Speakers at the rally include Tom Ammiano, San Francisco's inspirational, progressive leader; Gayle McLaughlin, former Richmond mayor who stood up to Chevron and won; David Braun, with Californians Against Fracking; and Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org.
- Olympia, Washington: Citizens will hold a lobby day to call for Washington state to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
"A constitutional amendment would help to guard the First Amendment rights of all American citizens to be heard in our elections and in government overall," Weissman said. We urge policymakers to support a constitutional amendment to reestablish the core meaning of democracy: rule by the people."
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
Booze Hound! Lina Khan, Not Done Yet, Targets Nation's Largest Alcohol Seller
"The FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," said one advocate.
Dec 12, 2024
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, alleging that the nation's largest alcohol distributor, "violated the Robinson-Patman Act, harming small, independent businesses by depriving them of access to discounts and rebates, and impeding their ability to compete against large national and regional chains."
The FTC said its complaint details how the Florida-based company "is engaged in anticompetitive and unlawful price discrimination" by "selling wine and spirits to small, independent 'mom-and-pop' businesses at prices that are drastically higher" than what it charges large chain retailers, "with dramatic price differences that provide insurmountable advantages that far exceed any real cost efficiencies for the same bottles of wine and spirits."
The suit comes as FTC Chair Lina Khan's battle against "corporate greed" is nearing its end, with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announcing Tuesday that he plans to elevate Andrew Ferguson to lead the agency.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress Education Fund, said Thursday that "instead of heeding bad-faith calls to disarm before the end of the year, the FTC is taking bold, needed action to fight back against monopoly power that's raising prices."
"By suing Southern Glazer under the Robinson-Patman Act, a law that has gone unenforced for decades, the FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," she added.
According to the FTC:
Under the Robinson-Patman Act, it is generally illegal for sellers to engage in price discrimination that harms competition by charging higher prices to disfavored retailers that purchase similar goods. The FTC's case filed today seeks to ensure that businesses of all sizes compete on a level playing field with equivalent access to discounts and rebates, which means increased consumer choice and the ability to pass on lower prices to consumers shopping across independent retailers.
"When local businesses get squeezed because of unfair pricing practices that favor large chains, Americans see fewer choices and pay higher prices—and communities suffer," Khan said in a statement. "The law says that businesses of all sizes should be able to compete on a level playing field. Enforcers have ignored this mandate from Congress for decades, but the FTC's action today will help protect fair competition, lower prices, and restore the rule of law."
The FTC noted that, with roughly $26 billion in revenue from wine and spirits sales to retail customers last year, Southern is the 10th-largest privately held company in the United States. The agency said its lawsuit "seeks to obtain an injunction prohibiting further unlawful price discrimination by Southern against these small, independent businesses."
"When Southern's unlawful conduct is remedied, large corporate chains will face increased competition, which will safeguard continued choice which can create markets that lower prices for American consumers," FTC added.
Southern Glazer's published a statement calling the FTC lawsuit "misguided and legally flawed" and claiming it has not violated the Robinson-Patman Act.
"Operating in the highly competitive alcohol distribution business, we offer different levels of discounts based on the cost we incur to sell different quantities to customers and make all discount levels available to all eligible retailers, including chain stores and small businesses alike," the company said.
Peterson-Cassin noted that the new suit "follows a massive court victory for the FTC on Tuesday in which a federal judge blocked a $25 billion grocery mega-merger after the agency sued," a reference to the proposed Kroger-Albertsons deal.
"The FTC has plenty of fight left and so should all regulatory agencies," she added, alluding to the return of Trump, whose first administration saw
relentless attacks on federal regulations. "We applaud the FTC and Chair Lina Khan for not letting off the gas in the race to protect American consumers and we strongly encourage all federal regulators to do the same while there's still time left."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Senate Prepares for NDAA Vote, Progressive Caucus Says It Is 'Past Time' to Slash Pentagon Budget
"This legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Dec 12, 2024
As Senate Democrats prepared to move forward with a procedural vote on the annual defense budget package that passed in the House earlier this week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its objections to the legislation and called for the Pentagon budget to be cut, with military funding freed up to "reinvest in critical human needs."
CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said following the passage of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 (H.R. 5009) that "it should alarm every American taxpayer that we are nearing a trillion-dollar annual budget for an agency rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse."
Jayapal, who was one of 140 lawmakers to oppose the package, emphasized that the Pentagon has failed seven consecutive annual audits.
Despite being the only federal agency to never have passed a federal audit, said Jayapal, the Department of Defense "continues to receive huge boosts to funding every year. Our constituents deserve better."
As Common Dreams reported last month, more than half of the department's annual budget now goes to military contractors that consistently overcharge the government, contributing to the Pentagon's inability to fully account for trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The $883.7 billion legislation that was advanced by the House on Wednesday would pour more money into the Pentagon's coffers. The package includes more than $500 million in Israeli military aid and two $357 million nuclear-powered attack submarine despite the Pentagon requesting only one, and would cut more than $621 million from President Joe Biden's budget request for climate action initiatives.
Jayapal noted that the legislation—which was passed with the support of 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans—also includes anti-transgender provisions, barring the children of military service members from receiving gender-affirming healthcare in "the first federal statute targeting LGBTQ people since the 1990s when Congress adopted 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act."
"This dangerous bigotry cannot be tolerated, let alone codified into federal law," said Jayapal.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the legislation "has some very good things we Democrats wanted in it, it has some bad things we wouldn't have put in there, and some things that were left out," and indicated that he had filed cloture for the first procedural vote on the NDAA.
The vote is expected to take place early next week, and 60 votes are needed to begin debate on the package.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of exorbitant U.S. military spending, said in a floor speech on Wednesday that he plans to vote no on the budget.
"While middle-class and working-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly just don't have the financial resources to help them," he said. "We just cannot afford to build more housing, we just cannot afford to provide quality childcare to our kids or to support public education, or to provide healthcare to all."
"But when the military industrial complex and all of their well-paid lobbyists come marching in to Capitol Hill," he continued, "somehow or another, there is more than enough money for Congress to provide them with virtually everything that they need."
Jayapal noted that the funding package includes substantive pay raises for service members and new investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, and other support for their families.
"Progressives will always fight to increase pay for our service members and ensure that our veterans are well taken care of," said Jayapal. "However, this legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction."
By cutting military spending, she said, the federal government could invest in the needs of all Americans, not just members of the military, "without sacrificing our national security or service member wages."
"It's past time we stop padding the pockets of price gouging military contractors who benefit from corporate consolidation," said Jayapal, "and reallocate that money to domestic needs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urge Biden to Limit Presidential Authority to Launch Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Charge
"As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," wrote Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu.
Dec 12, 2024
Two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday, urging him to place more checks on potential nuclear weapons use by mandating that a president must obtain authorization from Congress before initiating a nuclear first strike.
The letter writers, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), argue that "such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A president could order a nuclear launch only if (1) Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check on executive power or (2) the United States had already been attacked with a nuclear weapon. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine."
The two write that time is of the essence: "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled."
The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the power to declare war (though presidents have used military force without getting the OK from Congress on multiple occasions in modern history, according to the National Constitution Center).
During the Cold War, when nuclear weapons policy was produced, speed was seen as essential to deterrence, according to Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last year that makes a similar argument to Markey and Lieu.
"There is no reason today to rely on speedy decision-making during situations in which the United States might launch first. Even as relations with Moscow are at historic lows, we are worlds removed from the Cold War's dominant knife's-edge logic," he wrote.
While nuclear tensions today may not be quite as high as they were during the apex of the Cold War, fears of nuclear confrontation have been heightened due to poor relations between the United States and Russia over the ongoing war in Ukraine, among other issues. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use not long after the U.S. greenlit Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied long range weapons in its fight against Russia.
This is not the first time Markey and Lieu have pushed for greater guardrails on nuclear first-use. The two are the authors of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, a proposed bill first introduced in 2017 that would bar a U.S. president from launching a nuclear first strike without the consent of Congress.
"We first introduced this act during the Obama administration not as a partisan effort, but to make the larger point that current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous," they wrote.
In their letter, Markey and Lieu also recount an episode from the first Trump presidency when, shortly after the January 6 insurrection, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley ordered his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from Trump.
But Milley's ability to intervene was limited, according to Lieu and Markey, because his role is advisory and "the president can unilaterally make a launch decision and implement it directly without informing senior leaders." They argue this episode is a sign that the rules themselves must change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular