"Populist Dialogues" focuses on SCOTUS and corporate empowerment

"Populist Dialogues," produced by the Alliance's Portland (OR) chapter, has two new shows out focusing on recent Supreme Court decisions enlarging corporate power at the expense of voters and democracy.

In this show, first broadcast on July 24, Portland attorney Dan Meek reviews recent cases involving ATT, Walmart and Arizona clean election funding, finding a pattern of ongoing privatization of the judiciary even more dangerous than the damage these decisions did to class action and voter-owned elections.



Alliance for Democracy member Nancy Matela has been a election integrity activist and currently works on water issues and the human right to water. In this show, which will air July 31, she reviews reforms to Oregon's election system. She also discusses the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and the issue of water privatization in Oregon, including Nestle's proposals to bottle water at Cascade Locks, the Wilsonville water treatment plant and others. She emphasizes thta that bottled water is already privatization of water, a public resource, and discusses how regulation of water can depend on whether it's defined as a commodity.

Read more...

Supreme Court to decide Arizona’s unique campaign financing law

Does more money automatically equal freer speech? Does leveling the playing field between a candidate who runs "clean" and a free-spending non-participant mean "less free speech?" The Supreme Court considers Arizona's Clean Election law today, capping lower court decisions both backing and eliminating extra public money for candidates in the Clean Elections program who face well-funded opponents.

by Warren Richey. Posted on The Christian Science Monitor March 27

In the most important test of a campaign finance reform law since last year’s Citizens United decision, the US Supreme Court on Monday is set to examine the constitutionality of an Arizona statute that guarantees government money to certain political candidates in a dollar-for-dollar match of funds raised by opposing candidates through private donations.

At issue is whether Arizona’s system of public financing of state election campaigns violates the First Amendment rights of candidates who decide not to participate in the state-funded campaign system.

Candidates who opt-out are free to raise and spend as much money as they wish provided they abide by the state’s limits on individual contributions.

But the Arizona system is designed to encourage candidates to participate in the publicly-financed program. It does so by rewarding participants with automatic payments of matching funds whenever their privately-funded opponent spends certain amounts of money to advocate his or her political views.

The law, known as the Citizens Clean Elections Act, also applies to spending by independent advocacy groups. Expenditures by such groups either for a privately funded candidate or against a publicly funded candidate trigger state-provided matching funds to help the publicly funded candidate counter the group’s political activities.

A central issue in the case is whether the law punishes speech by privately funded candidates or merely enhances speech by candidates who accept only public funding.

Last year, the high court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that Congress under the First Amendment may not restrict the political speech of corporations and unions during election season.

Is 'equalizing' political speech constitutional?
The current case examines whether the First Amendment allows a state government to use a privately-funded candidate’s level of campaign spending to trigger matching funds from the government in a way that helps equalize the amount of speech by publicly funded candidates in the election.

Leveling the playing field among candidates to decrease the influence of money in politics is a major goal of many campaign finance reform advocates. The Arizona case may test the constitutionality of that approach.

Supporters of the Arizona public finance system say it helps fight corruption or the appearance of corruption by eliminating the need for state candidates to raise money to fund their election campaigns.

Opponents say the matching funds provision of the law exerts a chilling effect on the political speech of candidates who want to fund their own campaigns. Under the law, the more money a traditional candidate spends, the more money his or her publicly funded opponents will receive.

“Public financing in Arizona’s matching funds system forces a yoke around the neck of traditionally funded candidates,” said Nicholas Dranias in his brief to the court on behalf of candidates challenging the law.

“The State of Arizona … compels individuals to help disseminate private political speech, which they abhor, as a consequence and condition of speaking freely about politics,” said Mr. Dranias, a lawyer with the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix.

State officials say the matching funds system does not penalize traditionally funded candidates. Instead, they say, it is a calibrated mechanism to ensure that publicly-funded candidates are provided with sufficient money to run competitive races.

Since the total amount of matching funds for candidates is capped, privately funded candidates are free to outspend publicly funded candidates, Assistant Attorney General James Barton said in his brief defending the law.

“Petitioners alleged that the matching funds provision may burden their ability to speak, but it imposes no ceiling on campaign-related activities and does not prevent petitioners from speaking,” Mr. Barton wrote.

The state also argues that the public funding program protects Arizona from quid pro quo corruption and the appearance of corruption by freeing participating candidates from having to rely on special interest groups for campaign contributions.

“A system which eliminates the need for a candidate to accept private dollars would prevent financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors,” Barton said in his brief.

Opponents dispute corruption-fighting rationale

Opponents of the public finance system dispute this claimed corruption-fighting rationale. They say the public funding mechanism is really designed to “level the playing field” among competing candidates by restricting the amount of money candidates are likely to spend trying to get elected.

“The matching funds provision exists to ‘level’ the speech of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups who speak against publicly financed candidates,” wrote William Maurer, a lawyer with the Institute of Justice, in his brief on behalf of candidates and organizations challenging the law.

“It does so by creating disincentives for candidates and independent expenditure groups to engage in political activity above the expenditure limit set by the act,” he said.

Any effect on corruption, he says, is too far removed from the more direct effect of chilling political speech, he said.

The case began as lawsuits filed on behalf of two groups of candidates for state office and political committees that make independent expenditures in state elections. They argued that the matching fund provision of Arizona’s public finance system violated their free speech rights by deterring them from making campaign expenditures that might trigger a new source of funds for their publicly financed political opponents.

Lower courts came to different conclusions
A federal judge agreed with the candidates, and ordered the state to stop disbursing matching funds. A panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Arizona’s public finance system was justified as a means to prevent corruption and that the matching funds provision did not amount to a significant impediment to political speech.

“Based on the record before us, we conclude that any burden the act imposes on Plaintiffs’ speech is indirect or minimal,” the appeals court said.

“Plaintiffs bemoan that matching funds deny them a competitive advantage in elections,” the panel said. “The essence of this claim is not that they have been silenced, but that the speech of their opponents has been enabled.”

A few weeks after the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision, the US Supreme Court blocked the decision and reinstated the federal judge’s injunction prohibiting enforcement of the matching funds provision.

The cases are Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (10-238) and McComish v. Bennett (10-239).

Read more...

2-day workshop on Kingian Nonviolence

This workshop comes highly recommended! Check it out if you're in the Phoenix area.

Core Introduction to Kingian Nonviolence: a 2-day workshop
Saturday, September 18, 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Sunday, September 19, 11 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Held at the Sunlight Alliance Healing Center, 4640 W. Redfield Road, Glendale, Arizona
Sponsored by the Namaste Center, Sunlight Alliance, and the Arizona Department of Peace Campaign

This interactive and inspirational training presents introductory information about nonviolence as a courageous way of life and a powerful strategy for social change. Special emphasis is given to the Six Principles and Six Steps of Nonviolence according to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and their use during various civil rights campaigns.

All trainers have been certified by civil rights pioneer Dr. Bernard LaFayette, Jr., who worked closely with Dr. King for eleven years.

Cost of the workshop is $40, which includes a workbook, essays, snacks and an invaluable experience among a community of earnest people seeking a dynamic solution to today's violent world. Scholarships are available.

To request a registration form and/or for questions, please contact Nicolas Katkevich at 480-363-2120, Mark Klym at 602-799-4572 or email phoenixNonviolence@gmail.com

Read more...

Bad day for campaign finance reform

Earlier this month, we wrote about a Ninth District Court of Appeals decision overturning a lower court's ban on extra public funding for Arizona gubernatorial candidates who are facing the free-spending GOP firing range owner Buz Mills, a Republican, who has plowed $2.3 million into the race as of the end of May.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/08/20100608supreme-court-blocks-arizona-candidates-matching-funds.html#ixzz0qNVUFRewcandidates. The Ninth's call was to follow Arizona's original plan and give the three clean elections candidates extra funding. But yesterday, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked Arizona from providing the extra cash, effectively reducing the candidate's clean election funding by two-thirds. The court didn't note any dissent, or explain its reasoning—it needn't until Fall, by which time the election will likely be decided.

You can read more about the decision at SCOTUS blog and the Arizona Republic. We more or less agree with the New York Times, which sees the Roberts court as committed to the "destruction of the laws and systems set up in recent decades to reduce the influence of big money in politics."

Meanwhile, in California, Proposition 15 lost 42.5 percent to 57.5 percent. The measure would have set up a pilot public funding program for secretary of state elections, financed through additional fees on lobbyists. Post mortems center on whether it was a good idea to float such a ballot question in an election where all the major races were on the GOP side, or whether the people of California distrust public financing because they can't stomach paying to elect jerks.

Read more...

Sourdough Starters rising to the challenge of corporate personhood

by Susan Willis
In early April, Tucson's Sourdough Starters teamed up with the student chapter of the American Constitution Society and several other cosponsors to bring David Cobb to Tucson for an evening talk on "Legalizing Democracy", followed the next morning by a breakfast workshop. The workshop sought to engage activists interested in taking the next step toward promoting the passage of a constitutional amendment addressing corporate power.

Approximately 75-80 people came to the evening talk and were very engaged and stirred up by David's talk. About 20 people participated in the workshop on the following morning, with equal enthusiasm.

We are planning to collaborate with our local MoveOn.org council on some actions they are planning on the corporate power issue, one of which occurs on May 4, 2010. We are also interested in getting a seat at the table to consider changes in Tucson's city charter. A third action we are considering is using the MoveToAmend.org resolution template to craft a resolution to present to the Tucson City Council.

The main idea seems to be "Strike while the iron's hot!"

Here's the video:

Read more...

Local AfD'ers bring David Cobb to University of Arizona

A coalition of local groups, including the Alliance for Democracy, will be bringing David Cobb to speak on the need to amend the Constitution to establish broad democratic reforms, including the elimination of corporate personhood. The talk will take place Tuesday, April 13, at the University of Arizona's James E. Rogers College of Law, starting at 7 p.m. The talk is free and open to the public.

David Cobb, who ran for President in 2004 on the Green Party's ticket, continues to oppose the granting of rights to corporations that should be reserved to natural persons. At the national level, he serves as a principal with the Program on Corporations Law and Democracy (POCLAD). As a member of the steering committee of Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, Cobb helped to pass an initiative limiting corporate contributions to local elections. "Measure T" was eventually declared "null and void," but Cobb refuses to give up the fight against the burden of denying
"corporate personhood."

Writing as a member of a coalition that included Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Cobb helped craft an amicus brief arguing in support of the Federal Election Commission, and in defense of restrictions on corporate political expenditures. Unfortunately, his task has been made more difficult when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United and opened the floodgates for corporate dollars to flow. As a result, Cobb once again finds himself involved in a grassroots movement to "legalize democracy."

Working with the Campaign to Legalize Democracy, Cobb notes that more than 70,000 people have already signed the following "Motion to Amend":
"We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

• Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
• Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
• Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments."

Cobb plans to engage the people of Tucson in a dialogue about the importance of pursuing this goal, as well as the challenges that will have to be faced in crafting an amendment that can win passage at the national level.

His lecture will be preceded by media interviews. On Wednesday morning, interested members of Tucson's activist community will be invited to participate in a planning workshop to be held from 9 - 11 AM.

Event organizers include the local chapters of the Alliance for Democracy, WILPF, Democracy for America, and the student chapter of the American Constitution Society at the University of Arizona.

For information about Cobb's visit, his public lecture and the planning workshop, contact C.J. Jones at 622-3580, or cj@mcn.org.

Read more...

"Sourdough Starters" bring Democracy School to Tucson

The Tucson "Sourdough Starters" group is gearing up to sponsor another Democracy School. They're not focusing on any particular issue with regard to Democracy Schools but rather striving to increase the number of activists in the Tucson area who receive increased awareness and enlightenment on rights-based approaches to a variety of issues affecting the city and region. The Sourdough Starters are an informal group that came together after the Alliance's 2007 convention in Tucson. Members include people active with the Alliance, WILPF and the Democracy Organizing Group.

Read more...