SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Long Path to Reversing Citizens United
Campaign finance lawyers are pursuing two legal strategies to try and push back against the 2010 ruling, and other court decisions, that deregulated our campaign finance system.
Oct 28, 2016
Getting unlimited, special-interest money out of politics, an issue long on the back burner for politicians in Washington, moved front and center with this election year, driven by an outpouring of voter frustration. Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump ignited widespread support by pitching themselves as being outside a political system many voters see as being rigged by wealthy donors.
In the last presidential debate, unprompted by the moderator, Hillary Clinton said that she wanted to appoint Supreme Court justices who "will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
But a newly appointed justice can't simply stand up, on day one, and say "no." A case will have to come before the Supreme Court first, and only then can justices begin to unwind the host of decisions, of which Citizens United is only one, that have allowed a flood of often untraceable money to swamp America's elections.
Reform advocates have already begun to tee up challenges that could give a Supreme Court with a new majority an opportunity to rethink rulings like Citizens United and a lower-court ruling, SpeechNow v. FEC, which created super PACs. The battle is being waged on two fronts.
The first involves a frontal assault on some of the most prominent super PACs in this year's election. Advocacy groups have sued the Federal Elections Commission for failure to enforce election law.
Lawyers behind the effort, including former advisers to Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, argue that super PACs should not be legal, and that the lower court that effectively greenlit them with the SpeechNow ruling made a mistake. Ultimately that case could wend its way to the Supreme Court.
"It's kind of like playing whack-a-mole."
-- Scott Greytak, Free Speech for People
-- Scott Greytak, Free Speech for People
The second front is opening at the grass roots. The idea is that a city or state can create a law cracking down on some of the big-money election tactics that have become commonplace, expecting that that law will then be challenged. St. Petersburg, Florida is attempting to do just that.
Florida, an iconic political swing state, has seen quite a bit of attention -- and money -- from wealthy interests (candidates for state office are allowed to accept donations directly from corporations, something that's illegal at the federal level), and many in the state are fed up. St. Petersburg City Council Vice Chair Darden Rice introduced a measure this summer that would effectively make super PACs illegal in her city. The council voted 6-1 in favor of considering the measure.
" Money in politics is a very big problem in Florida politics," says Scott Greytak, a lawyer with Free Speech for People, one of the groups encouraging the St. Petersburg ordinance. "Gainesville passed lower candidate contribution limits -- the lowest in the state -- but then super PACs popped up because they can spend whatever they want. It's kind of like playing whack-a-mole."
In pushing the super PAC ban, backers of the measure are actually hoping to get sued.
"There is a likelihood it would be challenged," councilmember Rice told a local radio program this summer. "I am working with some of the best legal minds in the country, who are working on overturning Citizens United," she said, a reference to Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law professor and former Obama advisor, and Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota Law Professor and former George W. Bush advisor, who have teamed up with Free Speech for People and other reform groups.
Once challenged, the fight will advance through the court system and, advocates hope, ultimately reach the Supreme Court. At that point, the court will have the opportunity to reconsider the legal framework that allows for super PACs.
It's a long row to hoe -- but reformers see these legal strategies as more promising than the long-shot bids to pass a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. If a President Hillary Clinton can manage to overcome the already-promised Senate opposition to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, the Pandora's box opened by Citizens United and similar decisions might eventually be closed.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License.
John Light
John Light is the Managing Editor at Talking Points Memo and former producer for the Bill Moyers team. His work has appeared at The Atlantic, Grist, Mother Jones, Salon, Slate, Vox and Al Jazeera, and has been broadcast on Public Radio International. He's a graduate of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. You can follow him on Twitter at @LightTweeting.
Getting unlimited, special-interest money out of politics, an issue long on the back burner for politicians in Washington, moved front and center with this election year, driven by an outpouring of voter frustration. Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump ignited widespread support by pitching themselves as being outside a political system many voters see as being rigged by wealthy donors.
In the last presidential debate, unprompted by the moderator, Hillary Clinton said that she wanted to appoint Supreme Court justices who "will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
But a newly appointed justice can't simply stand up, on day one, and say "no." A case will have to come before the Supreme Court first, and only then can justices begin to unwind the host of decisions, of which Citizens United is only one, that have allowed a flood of often untraceable money to swamp America's elections.
Reform advocates have already begun to tee up challenges that could give a Supreme Court with a new majority an opportunity to rethink rulings like Citizens United and a lower-court ruling, SpeechNow v. FEC, which created super PACs. The battle is being waged on two fronts.
The first involves a frontal assault on some of the most prominent super PACs in this year's election. Advocacy groups have sued the Federal Elections Commission for failure to enforce election law.
Lawyers behind the effort, including former advisers to Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, argue that super PACs should not be legal, and that the lower court that effectively greenlit them with the SpeechNow ruling made a mistake. Ultimately that case could wend its way to the Supreme Court.
"It's kind of like playing whack-a-mole."
-- Scott Greytak, Free Speech for People
-- Scott Greytak, Free Speech for People
The second front is opening at the grass roots. The idea is that a city or state can create a law cracking down on some of the big-money election tactics that have become commonplace, expecting that that law will then be challenged. St. Petersburg, Florida is attempting to do just that.
Florida, an iconic political swing state, has seen quite a bit of attention -- and money -- from wealthy interests (candidates for state office are allowed to accept donations directly from corporations, something that's illegal at the federal level), and many in the state are fed up. St. Petersburg City Council Vice Chair Darden Rice introduced a measure this summer that would effectively make super PACs illegal in her city. The council voted 6-1 in favor of considering the measure.
" Money in politics is a very big problem in Florida politics," says Scott Greytak, a lawyer with Free Speech for People, one of the groups encouraging the St. Petersburg ordinance. "Gainesville passed lower candidate contribution limits -- the lowest in the state -- but then super PACs popped up because they can spend whatever they want. It's kind of like playing whack-a-mole."
In pushing the super PAC ban, backers of the measure are actually hoping to get sued.
"There is a likelihood it would be challenged," councilmember Rice told a local radio program this summer. "I am working with some of the best legal minds in the country, who are working on overturning Citizens United," she said, a reference to Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law professor and former Obama advisor, and Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota Law Professor and former George W. Bush advisor, who have teamed up with Free Speech for People and other reform groups.
Once challenged, the fight will advance through the court system and, advocates hope, ultimately reach the Supreme Court. At that point, the court will have the opportunity to reconsider the legal framework that allows for super PACs.
It's a long row to hoe -- but reformers see these legal strategies as more promising than the long-shot bids to pass a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. If a President Hillary Clinton can manage to overcome the already-promised Senate opposition to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, the Pandora's box opened by Citizens United and similar decisions might eventually be closed.
John Light
John Light is the Managing Editor at Talking Points Memo and former producer for the Bill Moyers team. His work has appeared at The Atlantic, Grist, Mother Jones, Salon, Slate, Vox and Al Jazeera, and has been broadcast on Public Radio International. He's a graduate of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. You can follow him on Twitter at @LightTweeting.
Getting unlimited, special-interest money out of politics, an issue long on the back burner for politicians in Washington, moved front and center with this election year, driven by an outpouring of voter frustration. Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump ignited widespread support by pitching themselves as being outside a political system many voters see as being rigged by wealthy donors.
In the last presidential debate, unprompted by the moderator, Hillary Clinton said that she wanted to appoint Supreme Court justices who "will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
But a newly appointed justice can't simply stand up, on day one, and say "no." A case will have to come before the Supreme Court first, and only then can justices begin to unwind the host of decisions, of which Citizens United is only one, that have allowed a flood of often untraceable money to swamp America's elections.
Reform advocates have already begun to tee up challenges that could give a Supreme Court with a new majority an opportunity to rethink rulings like Citizens United and a lower-court ruling, SpeechNow v. FEC, which created super PACs. The battle is being waged on two fronts.
The first involves a frontal assault on some of the most prominent super PACs in this year's election. Advocacy groups have sued the Federal Elections Commission for failure to enforce election law.
Lawyers behind the effort, including former advisers to Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, argue that super PACs should not be legal, and that the lower court that effectively greenlit them with the SpeechNow ruling made a mistake. Ultimately that case could wend its way to the Supreme Court.
"It's kind of like playing whack-a-mole."
-- Scott Greytak, Free Speech for People
-- Scott Greytak, Free Speech for People
The second front is opening at the grass roots. The idea is that a city or state can create a law cracking down on some of the big-money election tactics that have become commonplace, expecting that that law will then be challenged. St. Petersburg, Florida is attempting to do just that.
Florida, an iconic political swing state, has seen quite a bit of attention -- and money -- from wealthy interests (candidates for state office are allowed to accept donations directly from corporations, something that's illegal at the federal level), and many in the state are fed up. St. Petersburg City Council Vice Chair Darden Rice introduced a measure this summer that would effectively make super PACs illegal in her city. The council voted 6-1 in favor of considering the measure.
" Money in politics is a very big problem in Florida politics," says Scott Greytak, a lawyer with Free Speech for People, one of the groups encouraging the St. Petersburg ordinance. "Gainesville passed lower candidate contribution limits -- the lowest in the state -- but then super PACs popped up because they can spend whatever they want. It's kind of like playing whack-a-mole."
In pushing the super PAC ban, backers of the measure are actually hoping to get sued.
"There is a likelihood it would be challenged," councilmember Rice told a local radio program this summer. "I am working with some of the best legal minds in the country, who are working on overturning Citizens United," she said, a reference to Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law professor and former Obama advisor, and Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota Law Professor and former George W. Bush advisor, who have teamed up with Free Speech for People and other reform groups.
Once challenged, the fight will advance through the court system and, advocates hope, ultimately reach the Supreme Court. At that point, the court will have the opportunity to reconsider the legal framework that allows for super PACs.
It's a long row to hoe -- but reformers see these legal strategies as more promising than the long-shot bids to pass a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. If a President Hillary Clinton can manage to overcome the already-promised Senate opposition to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, the Pandora's box opened by Citizens United and similar decisions might eventually be closed.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.