Stamp out big money politics and political bribery!

Move to Amend is on a roll this fall! The Amend-O-Matic, a mobile money-stamping machine, will be crossing the country this fall, stopping to imprint your hard-earned currency with a strong call for an end to corporate personhood and political bribery.

The Amend-O-Matic is part machine and part vehicle--a public art spectacle, information center and money stamping machine. People can insert dollar bills and receive them back imprinted with messages like "Corporations Aren't People. Money Isn't Speech," "Not to Be Used for Bribing Politicians," and "The System Isn't Broken, It's Fixed." When you spend your stamped money, you send the anti-corporate personhood message out through the country.

The Stampede to Amend 2012 Tour kicks off on October 11 with a press conference in Los Angeles. From there, organizers Ashley Sanders and Renae Widdison will drive the “Amend-O-Matic” across the US. You can see the full tour here, but even better, you can help make the tour a success by hosting a stop, and helping to organize a workshop or training on building the anti-corporate personhood movement.

Hosting the Amend-O-Matic
Ashley and Renae will be driving the Amend-O-Matic to a new community each day, generally arriving around mid-day in order to spend some time in a public location, like a community park, downtown, farmer’s market, or art walk, operating the vehicle to stamp people’s cash and spreading the word about the workshop that evening. They will also be available at this time for interviews with local media. Each evening workshop starts at 6 and lasts an hour and a half. Ashley and Renae are experienced community organizers and trainers who can help your community respond to the impacts of corporate rule and join the Move to Amend campaign or engage more support for the work you are already doing.

Your local Alliance chapter or member network, Move to Amend affiliate, or community group would be responsible for helping to identify a good spot for public stamping, securing a venue for the workshop, hosting Ashley and Renae, doing community publicity and outreach for stamping and workshop, bringing in co-sponsoring groups if you can, passing the hat at the workshop to help fund the tour, and organizing a follow-up meeting about two weeks after the event to keep local organizing going.

The Alliance's Tools for Organizing page has lots of material to share with workshop participants. Other organizing material and publicity tips for mainstream and social media is available from Move to Amend. If you are interested in organizing a Move to Amend event in your community, please email stampede@movetoamend.org with your city and state in the subject.

Read more...

Justice Rising: Corporate Power or the Common Good?

Due out in October, the final issue of Justice Rising's series on "Money in Politics" will look at who runs US government. Is it the American people looking out for our common good or a corporate elite exerting control over public policy to benefit their private ends? Taking historic research by Gustavus Meyers, Thortstein Veblen and C. Wright Mills, this issue of Justice Rising will apply their analysis of "money power" to the twenty-first century. It will lay bare the disaster of a public policy driven by corporate allies in a time when the externalities of their market-driven rationales are causing extreme climate change as well as species and resource depletion-threatening life as we know it.

This important issue of Justice Rising will expose how the revolving door between corporate America and our government's top decision makers facilitates the monied elite's domination over Supreme Court decisions, our imperial foreign policy, and the daily workings of the regulatory system. It will also illuminate how our legislatures have been turned into training camps for corporate lobbyists.

In the tradition of Justice Rising, this issue will also promote the growing drive of the American people to exert democratic control over corporate power. From ending corporate personhood to creating a public service corps solidly loyal to the common good of the people, citizens are uniting to guarantee a future of liberty and justice for all.

A subscription to Justice Rising is free with Alliance for Democracy membership. For a free copy of this issue, email us in the Alliance office. Back issues of Justice Rising are available online, both as complete issues and individual articles.

Read more...

A step forward for the California DISCLOSE Act

AB 1648, the California DISCLOSE Act, which will help voters know who or what is paying for political ads, passed the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee late last week on a 4-2 vote, thanks to the support of many citizens and advocacy groups. Next step is a hearing before the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 18th. Lobbyists representing some of the largest special interests in the state are trying to keep voters in the dark by killing the bill. Info at www.caclean.org.

Read more...

Los Angeles may be the first major US city to call for an end to corporate personhood

Move to Amend LA and Move to Amend write:

Next week the Los Angeles City Council will vote on a resolution that calls on Congress to amend the Constitution to clearly establish that only living persons--not corporations--are endowed with constitutional rights and that money is not the same as free speech. If this resolution is passed, Los Angeles will be the first major city in the U.S. to call for an end to all corporate constitutional rights.

The campaign in Los Angeles is the latest grassroots effort by Move to Amend, a national coalition working to abolish corporate personhood. “Local resolution campaigns are an opportunity for citizens to speak up and let it be known that we won’t accept the corporate takeover of our government lying down," said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a national spokesperson for Move to Amend. "We urge communities across the country to join the Move to Amend campaign and raise your voices.”

Earlier this year voters in Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin overwhelmingly approved ballot measures calling for an end to corporate personhood and the legal status of money as speech by 84% and 78% respectively. In November voters in Boulder, Colorado and Missoula, Montana both passed similar initiatives with 75% support.

“We are experiencing overwhelming support for what may be a historic turning point in restoring a voice to the voters and setting an example for the rest of the country," stated Mary Beth Fielder, Coordinator of Move To Amend LA. "This action would provide the basis for overturning the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.”

Move to Amend volunteers in dozens of communities across the country are working to place similar measures on local ballots next year, including West Allis, WI, a conservative suburb of Milwaukee where last week local residents successfully qualified a measure for their spring ballot.

Move to Amend’s strategy is to pass community resolutions across the nation through city councils and through direct vote by ballot initiative. “Our plan is build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots. The American people are behind us on this and these campaigns help our federal representatives see that we mean business. Our very democracy is at stake,” stated Sopoci-Belknap.

The campaign in Los Angeles is endorsed by a growing list of organizations including Common Cause, Occupy LA, LA County Federation of Labor, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Environmental Caucus of the CA Democratic Party, Southern California Americans for Democratic Action, MoveOn LA, Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains, Democracy for America, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, AFSCME 36, LA Green Machine and California Clean Money Campaign.

Here's a list of resolutions passed to date. You can read Move to Amend's proposed amendment here.

Read more...

Mendocino AfD banner leads Occupy SF march

Tom Wodetzki of the Mendocino (CA) AfD chapter and his step-daughter Alexei led last Saturday's Occupy SF march holding this banner, which was made by Fort Bragg AfD friends for their Move to Amend entry in the Mendocino 4th of July Parade.

Tom and Alexei were followed down Market Street by 1,000 militant chanting folk--you can see the video here. Tom also attended OccupySF's Friday and Saturday General Assemblies.

This isn't the only occupy action that Tom and other AfD people have been involved with; there's also ongoing Friday afternoon protests in front of Bank of America and Chase offices in Fort Bragg. You can connect with efforts on the groups's Facebook page.

Read more...

City of Marina California resolves to amend the Constitution to control corporate "free speech"

On Tuesday October 18, the Marina (CA) City Council became the first on the Monterey Peninsula to pass a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment in response to the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission case. The resolution concludes:

Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Marina City Council calls for amending the U.S. Constitution to establish that:
1. Corporations should not be exempt from campaign finance restrictions on the basis of campaign contributions being the same as political speech protected by the First Amendment; and,
2. Corporations are not natural persons, and therefore are not entitled to the same First Amendment rights provided to individual persons.

You can read the full resolution here.

The Monterey County Alliance for Democracy chapter had been working on this since December of last year and are very happy that this finally came to a vote before the City Council and passed. Congratulations, Monterey County!

If you would like to learn more about passing a local resolution, check out resources on the Move to Amend site; and to build support in your town take a look at all the resources on our Tools for Organizing and street theater pages.

Read more...

"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...

Pricele$$ screens in Laconia, NH

Pricele$$ the Documentary will be shown tomorrow night in Laconia, NH, sponsored by the Belknap County Democrats, followed by a Q&A with the filmmaker, Steve Cowan. Admission is free.

The film will be shown starting at 6:30 p.m., at the Multi-Purpose Room, Laconia Middle School, 150 McGrath Street.

Pricele$$ examines the forces that control and drive industry in the United States, campaign financing. Pricele$$ asks the question, "How is big money corrupting politics in Washington and how can we fix it?"

A Concord based non-profit, Americans for Campaign Reform, is working hard on these very questions, providing voters with the information they need to make informed decisions. Pricele$$ attempts to tackle two major issues in our economy, food and energy. The film shows us that in order to be an elected official, campaigners need to seek funding from "large donors such as the oil & gas industry, agrichemical companies, health insurers, and Wall Street...you know...the type of companies they're supposed to be regulating."

The film is being shown as part of The Green Living Series.

Read more...

July 4: Declare your independence from corporate rule

As a member of the Move to Amend coalition, we're passing on this alert and we strongly urge our members and supporters to get out and organize actions for Independence Day. And, of course, let us know what you're planning and we'll help publicize it--and send us pictures afterwards!

Join Move to Amend this 4th of July as we Declare Our Independence from Corporate Rule in communities across the nation! Let's educate our fellow citizens about the corporate threat to our democracy, and get them engaged in the movement to take back our country!

View yesterday's Take Action Webinar for details and tips to organize the creative ideas listed below, and more! Need some  inspiration for what to do? How about... an I Miss Democracy pageant, complete with swimsuits, tiaras and sashes, and a talent competition showcasing all the things that corporate persons are really good at. Or pick another way to be visible--and don't be afraid to be as outrageous as the idea that corporations have the same kind of constitutional rights as human beings!

• Dress as corporate judges and corporate "persons" and dance and sing about the takeover of our democracy in your local 4th of July parade
• Host a Corporate Personhood picnic
• Stage a human-corporate mock wedding
• Organize a birthday party for Democracy. Read this "Declaration of Independence from Corporate Rule".

And more!

Find tips and ideas for these events and more on our website... or invent your own creative ways to educate your community about Corporate Personhood and the Move to Amend campaign.

Don't have a Move to Amend affiliate group in your community yet? Start one up! The 4th of July is a great time to spread the word and expand the movement.

Help us collect signatures and grow the number of local Move to Amend groups across the country. Americans of all political persuasions are fed up! Let's offer them an opportunity to join our cause.

Yours for democracy,
Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap
Move to Amend Executive Committee & Field Organizing Coordinator

Read more...

Today's news and views

● A group of more than 80 business groups have told President Obama to "abandon" a draft executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose political contributions. Groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Retail Federation and the National Association of Manufacturers claimed the disclosure requirement would "chill their free speech rights" according to The Hill.

● Federal contributions are down 30 percent to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the two federal programs that offer no- or low-cost loans to upgrade municipal drinking water systems, and small towns are feeling the pinch.

● Five Republican Senators—Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Pat Roberts (Kan.) John Cornyn (Texas), John Thune (S.D.) and Richard Burr (N.C.)—have signed on to a letter to IRS commissioner Douglas H. Shulman asking why the agency has begun investigating potential tax liability in large donations to 501(c)4 groups after decades of looking the other way, and asking whether following the rules represents a violation of donors' constitutional rights.

● Scott McLarty looks for a language to describe a radical ideology for the 21st century.

Read more...

Today's news and views

● Despite being met by rain and a moat (!), protestors inside and outside JP Morgan Chase & Co.'s annual meeting turned out in force to criticize the cormpany's handing of mortgage foreclosures. Story here and video and photos here.

● James Bopp's proposed Super PAC may be too chummy with RNC operatives to be legal, according to critics. Meh, says Bopp, who told the Wall Street Journal Monday that "the Supreme Court doesn’t care, and I don’t care, and the [Federal Election Commission] doesn’t care. No one that matters cares.”

Read more...

Today's news and views

● James Bopp took the Citizens United case to the Supreme Court and found five justices willing to wipe away a century of campaign finance law. But according to Mother Jones, he's just getting started both taking down campaign finance law, and registering his own Super PAC.

● The 8th Circuit court has upheld a Minnesota law requiring corporations to disclose when they spend money to support or defeat a candidate. The case to overturn the law was brought by groups objecting to the reporting requirements that revealed Target and Best Buy's support for Tom Emmer, a gubernatorial candidate opposed to same-sex marriage, and then led to protests and boycotts.

● It's getting harder to track campaign contributions in Pennsylvania because budget cuts have eliminated funding for getting submitted campaign finance reports online. Most candidates file paper reports; moves to require electronic filing are perennially shot down in the legislature.

Read more...

Today's news and views

● France bans fracking.

● The IRS may be ramping up enforcement on a tax on gifts to 504 (c)(4) organizations--the non-profit political groups that have been used most recently to funnel anonymous cash donations to candidates in 2010, and were poised to make a big impact in the presidential race (The Center for Responsive Politics notes that groups that do not disclose their donors rose from 1 percent of all spending by outside groups to 47 percent between the 2006 election cycle and the 2010 election cycle.). According to Ben Smith, posting on Politico: "Now the Republican donors who gave generously to Crossroads GPS and other groups last cycle may find themselves on the hook for substantial back taxes. And Democrats contemplating contributions to Priorities USA, the new pro-Obama c4, may face similar questions."

Read more...

A "mahalo" to county councillors, and a kick-off for preserving Hawaiian fair elections

A pilot Fair Elections law in Hawaii County, Hawaii provides a public funding option for county council elections. On Tuesday, citizens and students gathered in Hilo to thank the current county council for their support of the current law, and draw attention to the need to continue the program past the current 2014 expiration date.

A $3 voluntary tax checkoff funds the program, and the collected funds are used to match small donations, explained Dr. Noelie Rodriguez, a sociology professor at Hilo Community College, and a member of AfD, who helped organize the gathering. “I am grateful to the County Council members who pushed for this critically important reform that can restore our democracy. It is the reform that makes all the other reforms possible.”

Hawaii's Big Island pilot program is similar to public campaign funding in Arizona, and aspects of Arizona's law will be up for a legal challenge to be heard by the Supreme Court. But Hawaii fair elections advocates say they have replacement language to insert into their law if the court rules against fair elections in Arizona.

You can watch video of the gathering here, and read more about the Hawaiian program.

Read more...

Today's news and views

● While many Democrats have publicly denounced the Citizens United decision, they're still going to collect and spend new money made available by the ruling, says Emma Dumain, posting on Roll Call. Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action are two new Dem groups following Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS model.

● Public Citizen's informal survey of mostly Democratic congressional staffers found that thanks to the Citizens United decision, a significant number of them fear retaliation against their bosses if they should tick off a powerful lobbyist. Report and press release here.

The House Oversight Committee wont subpoena White House budget director Jack Lew but will instead hear testimony from another official tomorrow, when they wrangle with the notion of requiring federal contractors to disclose their political contributions once they top $5,000 in a year. More here. Opponents to the measure are making statements on what amount to the political ramifications of being paid off above, rather than below, the table.

● A collection of a-ha moments by Cintra Wilson.

Read more...

Today's news and views

● Kevin Zeese explains the illegality of funneling anonymous political donations through non-profit groups, and urges a federal executive order ending "pay to play" political donations from federal contractors.

● The current issue of the Boston Review focuses on Fixing Congress, with attention paid to campaign finance reform, and commentary by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) and others.You can read about half of the essays online.

● The group formerly known as Michigan Citizens United, which is seeking to recall that state's governor, Rick Snyder, has changed its name to the Committee to Recall Rick Snyder after "that" Citizens United sent them a letter threatening a suit.

Read more...

Fixing democracy: the newsbeat

● Alan Simpson, a Republican who represented Wyoming in the US Senate for almost 20 years and is now co-chair of Americans for Campaign Reform, explains why the GOP should get behind publicly funded campaigns: "Even a cursory glance at campaign finance disclosures shows that the lion’s share of campaign money comes from individuals and groups with vested tax-and-spending interests before Congress."

● Shareholder meetings provide a spotlight for those who have been victimized by corporate practice to confront boards of directors, as foreclosure victims did to Wells Fargo last week. And this year in particular, more shareholder proposals ask boards of directors to report on corporate spending and contributions. In fact, according to ProxyMonitor's Findings page report that among Fortune 100 companies, “the share of social policy proposals focusing on political spending has increased 84% in 2011 from the three previous years (2008-2010)” One of the most ambitious proposals will be heard at Home Depot's stockholder meeting on June 2, where a vote will consider asking the corporation to submit political expenditures to a shareholder advisory vote.

● The coalition Campaign Accountability Watch is asking US attorneys to prosecute outside groups for using nonprofits to take anonymous donations in what it says is a violation of election laws that require transparency. Forty US attorneys have received letters from the coalition.

● Nevada's secretary of state is seeking to beef up that state's campaign finance laws, including passage of a bill that would require earlier and on-line filing of campaign contributions, to allow voters to see who or what was funding a candidate's campaign before election day. Other reforms include restriction of creation of multiple PACs to get around donation limits, online voter registration, a "cooling off" period between lawmaking and lobbying gigs, and disclosure of entities or individuals spending more than $100 for or against a candidate.

Read more...

Five corporations that paid no 2009 taxes bought $8 million worth of candidate in 2010

NYC Public Advocate Bill De Blasio has turned the spotlight on corporations that pay no taxes while spending big bucks on political parties, candidates, PACs and the like.

From the Public Advocate website:

Public Advocate de Blasio’s analysis shows the top five recipients of corporate tax breaks avoided paying $3.7 billion in potential taxes in 2009, while also contributing more than $43.1 million to political campaigns over the last decade. During the 2009-2010 election cycle, the group of companies spent a combined $7.86 million in campaign contributions, a 7% jump over their 2007-2008 political spending.

In letters recently sent to Exxon-Mobil and four other corporations, the Public Advocate called on these companies to pledge this latest windfall will not be spent on electioneering. De Blasio is also urging consumers and shareholders to contact Exxon-Mobil’s General Counsel through www.advocate.nyc.gov/exxon to urge adoption of a proposed shareholder’s resolution calling for full disclosure of all corporate political spending.

De Blasio's focus on Exxon also spotlights increased spending by the oil and gas industry at a time of both record gas prices and record profits. During the last election cycle, oil and gas nabobs gave more than $30.5 million to federal level political interests, according to Center for Responsive Politics research. This amount includes more than $17.1 million from industry political action committees, nearly $11.4 million from individuals associated with the industry and more than $2 million in outside money the industry spent to independently promote or slam political candidates. Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and Chief Oil and Gas led the pack in spending, most of it going to the GOP or conservative "blue dog" Democrats.

The odds of Exxon/Mobil top management or any other corporate players ending the practice of investing in friendly elected officials just because the American people tell them to stop, is, admittedly, far fetched. But given how quiet many officials have been on the issue of political bribery, de Blasio deserves credit for making this issue the Public Advocate's business.

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...

Monopoly: The Wisconsin Edition

This infographic details how Koch Industries supported the candidacy of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, only to be well positioned to take advantage of a provision in his budget bill that would allow him to sell off state-owned energy infrastructure to whomever he likes at whatever price he wants. Check out The Other 98%'s website for other good videos, graphics, and signs.

Read more...