Corporate personhood: don't regulate, eliminate!

Bonnie Preston, one of the Alliance's vice co-chairs, was one of the resource speakers at a recent teach-in at the University of Maine-Orono. Bonnie has been an active organizer for local food and self-governance ordinances in her part of Maine. She spoke alongside BJ McAllister, of Maine Clean Elections. Maine's governor is no fan of the state's clean election system, and has attempted to defund it. 

Here's what Bonnie said to the group:

Good afternoon! My name is Bonnie Preston, and I am a member of the Alliance for Democracy, which believes that the overarching task of our time is to get our democratic republic out of the hands of the mega-corporations and back into the hands of We the People.

Money in politics is not just about elections and how they are financed. More insidiously, it is about the two arms of the revolving door--lobbying and corporate capture of the agencies of government. It’s hard to pin down the number of lobbyists in Washington DC right now, but it is certainly dozens for each of our elected representatives in Congress. Many of these are former elected officials. For example, Billy Tauzin led the fight to pass a Medicare prescription drug plan that forbade negotiating prices with the drug manufacturers. After that signature achievement, he went to work for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing of America (PhRMA), the lobbying arm of the drug industry, where he became the highest paid health-law lobbyist in the country.

The flip side of people leaving government for lobbying is leaving the private sector to work for a government agency, temporarily of course. Exhibit A is Michael Taylor, who has moved back and forth from Monsanto to either the FDA or USDA for decades. He is now in charge of writing the regulations that will support the Food Safety Modernization Act, now in final draft form. If implemented, these rules could put an end to small farms in the US.

These two forces are driving the complete take-over of government by the private sector, and no campaign finance reform will touch this.

So what can we do to get the government back in our hands? The Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court galvanized people so dramatically that it has opened a door to a possibility that many of us who have worked for years on this issue have seen as a distant hope, if not a pipe dream. Since 1886, the Supreme Court has granted corporations more and more specific constitutional rights; corporations have used these to increase their political power.

The founders kept corporations under control. Corporate charters, required to show how the corporation would serve the public interest, had to be approved by state legislatures. They were limited in time and scope, had to be extended if desired by the legislatures, and could be revoked if the corporation failed to serve the public. A corporation could not buy another corporation, so they must stay small and competitive.

Today, monopolistic corporations, which include the too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks, are preventing progress on everything we need to do if we are going to continue to live on this planet. The rights we have given them are even being enshrined in international law through the World Trade Organization and the NAFTA-style trade agreements. This trade regime is culminating in the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement with all the powers of NAFTA, but with a significant difference. Once in place, countries will not have to negotiate a trade deal; they will simply sign on to the TPP. The multi-national corporations, with the enforcement powers of the trade organizations backed by the military might of supposedly democratic governments, are growing into a force that will totally destroy our ability to govern ourselves in a humane and environmentally sound way.

We must directly confront corporations and the concept of corporate personhood. A Constitutional amendment that ends corporate personhood as well as the concept that money is not speech is necessary. Abraham Lincoln did not try to regulate slavery, or end it in steps, or disclose its evils. He backed the 13th amendment, which freed the slaves. We are still cleaning up the mess created by slavery, and we will have a lot of work to do to clean up the messes that corporations have made as well, but a Constitution that says that corporations are not persons with constitutional rights will provide the solid ground we can stand on as we do that work. AfD, a founding partner of the Move to Amend coalition, is committed to this type of systemic change.

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...

"Corporate Personhood Cannot Withstand Organized Persons"

In "Corporate Personhood Cannot Withstand Organized Persons," David Swanson provides a rundown of congressional resolutions and proposed amendments designed to address the Citizens United decision and the power of big money in politics, and picks out the loopholes in some that would allow "business as usual" for deep-pocketed funders. Importantly, he also cites some additional "to-dos"--and the organizations that are working on them--that would make our government truly representative of the popular will. These include a variety of election reforms from same-day voter registration to hand-counted ballots, public funding, and establishing a legal right to vote. Worth reading!

Read more...

Boulder CO voters say no to corporate personhood, "money as speech"

Voters in Boulder overwhelmingly approved a non-binding resolution calling for an amendment to the Constitution ending corporate access to personhood rights and defending the right of municipalities to regulate campaign donations.

The ballot question, Question 2H, won by a near 3 to 1 margin, according to the final count, with 18,392 ayes to 6,556 votes against.

The measure asks:

"Shall the People of the City of Boulder adopt the following resolution: RESOLVED, the People of the City of Boulder, Colorado call for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:

1. Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and

2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech."

Congratulations to local voters and to the coalition Yes on 2H, which brought together organizations and individuals in support of the measure. Local media coverage here.

Update! We just got the following press release from Boulder Move to Amend, Boulder Yes on 2H and Move to Amend:

BOULDER, CO - Last night Boulder became the second city in the nation to pass a ballot measure calling for an amendment to the US Constitution that would state that corporations are not people and the legal status of money as free speech. At midnight, with 93% of the ballots counted, the measure was handily winning with 74% of voters in support.

Boulder's campaign is the latest grassroots effort by Move to Amend, a national coalition working to abolish corporate personhood. "From Occupy Wall Street to Boulder, Colorado and every town in between, Americans are fed up with corporate dominance of our political system," said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a national spokesperson for Move to Amend. "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. 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 similar measures calling for an end to corporate personhood and the legal status of money as speech by 84% and 78% respectively. Next week voters in Missoula, Montana will have an opportunity to vote on a similar initiative in their community. Move to Amend volunteers in dozens of communities across the country are working to place similar measures on local ballots next year.

"Today's 'corporate personhood' referendum in Boulder, Colorado is the latest message from the American people to state and federal legislators on the need for a Constitutional Amendment," said Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD). "The Supreme Court's misguided Citizens' United ruling burst open the floodgates of corporate spending in our elections, but it also unleashed a wave of public outcry over the need to put individuals, not corporations, in control of our elections. The results from today are just one example that we must take action to protect our treasured democracy."

Edwards introduced a bill last month for a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the controversial Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case.

"Working on this campaign was electrifying," said Scott Silber, a local Move to Amend organizer in Boulder. "We had such an outpouring of enthusiasm from our community. Folks were so thrilled to finally have an opportunity to have their voices heard and resoundingly call for an end to corporate corruption of our democracy. From here we're taking the campaign to Denver, and then on to Washington, DC."

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 our federal representatives will see that we mean business. Our very democracy is at stake," stated Sopoci-Belknap.

Here's a complete list of all resolutions passed to date.

Contact:
Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, National Field Director, (707) 362-0626, Move to Amend
Scott Silber, Boulder Move to Amend, (510) 485-6586
Elena Nunez, Boulder Yes on 2 H Campaign, (720) 339-3272

Read more...

So now what?

Mitt Romney's "corporations are people" gaffe spotlights a pervasive political mindset based on expediency: candidates claim that corporations are people because the Supreme Court said so, but mostly because the people who own and manage certain very large corporations give certain candidates a great deal of money with which to campaign and win elected office. And, of course, with the Citizens United decision, a corporation can mount a campaign for a favored candidate on their own, although it's more discrete to funnel the money into a SuperPAC.

So what do real people do?

Why not a flashmob action? Get some friends together. Hold up a sign or pick a well-known local spot so people know where you are. Make noise and chant... "Who Are the People, We are the People, Move to Amend that corporations are not people!"

Post the video online and send us the link, and we'll post it here and on our Facebook page. Or see some of the other street theater action ideas here.

Read more...

Mitt Romney: "Corporations are people, my friend"

Open mouth, remove silver spoon, insert foot. Regardless of whether Mitt Romney was speaking from the heart or got jittery and shot from the hip, his Iowa State Fair quip that "corporations are people" set a lot of teeth on edge. For Romney, perhaps, it was a glib critique of tax increases. But it was also a sign of how closely political fortune is tied to corporate rule and corporate cash.

Romney might be correct in that the money corporations make eventually get paid out to some individuals--employees or stockholders. But to say that corporations are people, and especially to endow corporations with constitutional personhood rights, as court decisions have steadily done, endangers our nation and our democracy. Corporations have no loyalties to any concept other than making a profit. If the good of an individual, a family, a community, or even the nation gets in the way of a strong bottom line at the end of the quarter, there's no question that real people--you and me--will take a back seat to profit.

You don't have to look much further than Romney's own business career to see this concept in action, courtesy of leading political commentator (sadly, we're not being ironic) Stephen Colbert:

“You see, Romney made a Mittload of cash using what’s known as a leveraged buyout. He’d buy a company with ‘money borrowed against their assets, groomed them to be sold off and in the interim collect huge management fees.’ Once Mitt had control of the company, he’d cut frivolous spending like ‘jobs,’ ‘workers,’ ‘employees,’ and ‘jobs.’ […] “Because Mitt Romney knows just how to trim the fat. He rescued businesses like Dade Behring, Stage Stories, American Pad and Paper, and GS Industries, then his company sold them for a profit of $578 million after which all of those firms declared bankruptcy. Which sounds bad, but don’t worry, almost no one worked there anymore."

Romney's rep as a job killer led to his Senate campaign being bird-dogged by a "truth squad" ‘of striking workers from a Marion, Indiana, paper plant who had lost jobs, wages, health care, and pensions after Ampad, a Bain subsidiary, took control. Ampad eventually went bankrupt, but Bain walked away with $100 million for its $5 million investment.

The threat of profit-before-people corporate deeds are why in the early days of this country corporations were kept under tight legal restraint: chartered for a specific public purpose, dissolved when that purpose was accomplished, their books subject to inspection, and conglomerates of corporations owning other corporations forbidden. But thanks to a slew of court decisions, we've swung the other way, to where corporations are legally immortal, dedicated only to profit, and "human" enough to have the same free speech rights as individuals, although their "voice" is amplified a thousand-fold by the money they have on hand to buy, bribe, or influence the candidates of their choice.

So while the Democrats have jumped all over Romney's remark, don't believe their hype. For DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse, for instance, Romney's remarks amount to little more than a lack of sympathy: "There's a great message for people struggling to get by and trying to make ends meet. Don't complain -- corporations are people too!"

Here's news for both parties: it's not just the folks who are struggling who are mightily ticked off at the attitude that Romney's quip represents. It's everyone who questions whether our elected officials are more loyal to their funders than to their constituents. It's everyone who sees elections as a public good that should be publicly funded, just as our police, fire, and libraries are, to ensure every voice and every vote counts. It's everyone who sees the Citizens United decision as the ultimate auction of constitutional personhood rights to the highest bidders. We're the majority, we're the citizens, we're the voters, we're the people, and we want our democracy back.

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...

"Granny D Day" bill will be signed in Concord, NH tomorrow

New Hampshire's Gov. John Lynch will sign SB 173 tomorrow, proclaiming January 24 as Granny D Day in the Granite State. The signing will take place 11 a.m. in the Executive Council Chamber at the state capitol building in Concord, and the public is welcome to attend to honor a remarkable and inspiring woman.

A bronze bust of Granny D will also be on display, before heading to the Granny D archives at Keene State College in Keene, NH, where it will be formally unveiled at the opening of the archives in September.

New Hampshire clean elections activists have long campaigned for public funding, and despite state and federal level setbacks, are still dedicated to carrying on their work. If you'd like to know more about clean elections in New Hampshire or this specific event, please email grannydconcert@aol.com.

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...

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...

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...

LA Times says "Yes on Measure H"

The Los Angeles Times has come out in favor of Measure H, which would ban entities bidding for large city contracts from donating to those running for city office.

Kind of a no-brainer, eh? But this very basic campaign finance reform measure has its opponents, and needs voter and citizen support. If you're in the LA area, contact the California Clean Money Campaign and get involved with phonebanking and other voter education initiatives.

Here's the editorial, which came out on February 18, here.

Read more...

Another way of measuring the cost of elections

Not-so-fun fact from the Orlando Sentinel:
"This year's gubernatorial election was the most expensive in Florida history. Over the two-month general election campaign, Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Alex Sink together spent more than $55 million on ads, subjecting the average Orlando TV viewer to their commercials 309 times – equal to two hours and 34 minutes, or roughly the length of the movie 'Avatar.'"

Read more...

Victory for fair elections at Los Angeles City Council

The California Clean Money Campaign reports that after months of working with the Los Angeles City Council and years of CCMC and coalition efforts with the city, the council voted 11-4 on Tuesday to place a measure on the March 2011 ballot that would amend the city charter to remove the cap on the city's public financing Trust Fund, a key step towards both strengthening the city's current public matching funds system and eventually allowing the city to move to full Fair Elections public financing of campaigns.

The charter amendment, if passed, will also restrict campaign contributions and fundraising by bidders on certain city contracts and impose bans on future contracts for violators.

The council must still reaffirm the measure by a majority vote and CCMC has to work with the mayor to avoid a veto, but they've jumped this big hurdle to putting Fair Elections on the LA ballot.

Several AfD supporters are now organizing with the California Clean Money Campaign, including CCMC chair and former AfD council member Jo Seidita, Southwest regional rep and now CCMC San Fernando Valley coordinator Robin Gilbert, and CCMC Metro LA Coordinator Tobi Dragert.

Los Angeles currently has a partial public financing system, passed as a charter amendment by the voters in 1990, that requires the city to make an annual appropriation (currently ~$3 million a year), up to a cap (currently ~$12 million). In its first 16 years or so it worked well to help new candidates run for office and compete, but it hasn't kept up with the times. And, of course, to better lessen "the appearance of corruption" (as the Supreme Court would say), it really needs to provide full public funding for candidates. But the cap on the trust fund makes that impossible without going to the voters.

This measure will give voters the chance to remove the trust fund cap, a small but critical step towards full Fair Elections public funding of campaigns in the second largest city in the country and therefore a powerful example for the rest of the state.

CCMC thanked councilmembers Jose Huizar and Council President Eric Garcetti for their leadership putting Fair Elections on the LA city ballot, and Council members Ed Reyes, Paul Krekorian, Tom LaBonge, Paul Koretz, Tony Cardenas, Richard Alarcon, Herb Wesson, Bill Rosendahl, and Janice Hahn, for their "yes" votes. They also thanked fellow organizers CA Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of LA, and Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, as well as CCMC's many grassroots supporters.

If you're not on the CCMC list, sign up here.

Read more...

Washington and change: cash you can believe in

Lobbyist and special interest money have turned the city of Washington into a kind of Oz, with its struggling, low-income neighborhoods hidden out of sight of the rich and powerful, just as systemic national problems of poverty, stagnant wages, haphazard education and health care, and unemployment seem to have dropped off the radar of the playmakers funding this year's crop of 501 c 4's and 6's.

by Michael Winship. Posted October 14 on Truthout
"Somebody once said the Washington was a city of Northern charm and Southern efficiency." So John F. Kennedy famously remarked in 1961 and so the town seemed to remain when I first moved there in 1969 to go to school.

Clerks in dusty stores moved with the majestic inertia of tall ships becalmed. You could count the number of good restaurants on the fingers of one hand - okay, maybe two hands. There was a rendering plant on the south side of K Street that turned animal carcasses into glue; when the wind blew the wrong way, the awful smell brought tears to the eyes of those who lived and shopped along the fashionable lanes of Georgetown.

There were still "temporary" buildings on the National Mall that had been there since the end of World War I, filled with government workers. But any citizen could freely walk the corridors of Congress, enter a member's office to leave an opinion or pick up a pass for the visitors' galleries of the House or Senate, ride that little subway that runs underneath the Capitol. No campaign contributions required.

Or so it seemed to a white, middle-class college kid. Washington also was a city in decline. Not quite a year and a half had passed since the three days of riots that followed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination. Thirteen people had died, more than a thousand were hurt and you could still see piles of rubble and burned out storefronts. Hundreds of businesses had been damaged or destroyed.

Robert Reich - the new chairman of the nonpartisan, citizens' lobby Common Cause - remembers DC in those days, too. He interned for Bobby Kennedy and later at the Federal Trade Commission. Then, the capital changed. By the time Reich became President Clinton's secretary of labor in 1993, poverty was still rampant in the city, but much of it had been shoved beyond the sightlines of the rich and powerful. "Washington was much fancier," he recalled. "It almost glittered - the hotels and the bistros and the restaurants - and the money."

Speaking at Common Cause's 40th anniversary dinner on October 6, Reich noted, "It's even wealthier today. You walk around Washington and you see what it is and that money is here for one reason. It may go into the hands of people who are lawyers and public relations people and lobbyists but it is here for one reason and that is to influence our democracy. We have never seen in American history as much money flowing to our nation's capitol. This election that is coming up is an election in which for the first time that I can remember there are hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to candidates and we have no way of knowing who is providing this money at all. Complete, absolute secrecy."

Kenneth Vogel at the web site Politico.com echoes Reich: "Never in modern political history has there been so much secret money gushing into an American election. By Election Day, independent groups will have aired more than $200 million worth of campaign ads using cash that can't be traced back to its original source, predicts Fred Wertheimer, president of the non-profit group Democracy 21. 'And this is just the beginning,' Wertheimer said. 'Unless we get some changes here to mitigate this problem, I would expect we will see $500 million or more in 2012.'"

This year "has raised two basic questions that strike at the very core of the ethos of the campaign-finance reform effort: Can the flow of money into elections be limited if the courts have deemed political giving and spending a First Amendment right? Can any system of rules to make money more transparent ever keep up with the legal devices that powerful interests use to keep their influence hidden?"

Do you like this? Click here to get Truthout stories sent to your inbox every day - free.

This is not just the fault of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, although it has unleashed vast new sums of cash into the system - compare this year's elections with the midterms of four years ago. Nor is it yet because of foreign money attempting to influence elections although, Karl Rove and the US Chamber of Commerce's denials to the contrary, this is a clear and present danger. And true, it's not solely because of deep corporate pockets that Democrats seem to be headed toward a significant setback in three weeks; a still faltering economy and lack of jobs are giving them a brutal slapping around.

But the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act has been eviscerated by the courts and what's left of it is barely enforced by the Federal Election Commission. The same goes for various provisions of the federal tax code, which need not only stricter enforcement, but beefing up.

The October 12 Washington Post editorialized:

"Nonprofit advocacy groups, known as 501(c)(4)s, are permitted to engage in political advocacy as long as that is not their primary purpose. Meanwhile, these groups do not have to reveal the identities of their donors. IRS regulations bar such organizations from 'direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office,' but as a practical matter, these limits have not made much difference.

"One such Republican-leaning group, American Crossroads GPS, has touted its ability to keep donor names confidential even as it runs ads in key races. Similarly, trade associations such as the Chamber of Commerce, organized under section 501(c)(6) of the tax code, are not required to disclose donors and are permitted even greater leeway to engage in political activity."

Unfortunately, while the voting public expresses concern over campaign spending, it's not very high on their agenda; most believe it will take an outrage such as Watergate, or at least another Jack Abramoff influence peddling-type scandal to get reform back on the tracks.

Campaign finance reform has been a goal of the organization Common Cause since it was founded in 1970 by the great John Gardner, a Republican.

My friend and colleague Bill Moyers ended their anniversary dinner last week with a call to action, invoking the memory of Gardner and another prominent member of the GOP:

"The founder of Common Cause was a prophet in seeing money as the dagger directed at the heart of democracy," Moyers said. "Like his fellow Republican Teddy Roosevelt, he opposed the 'naked robbery' of the public's trust. A century ago, in one of the most powerful speeches in American political history, Roosevelt said: 'It is not a partisan issue; it is more than a political issue; it is a great moral issue. If we condone political theft, if we do not resent the kinds of wrong and injustice that injuriously affect the whole nation, not merely our democratic form of government but our civilization itself cannot endure.'"

Moyers concluded, "The only way to defeat organized money is with organized people. Now it's your turn."

Read more...

Statements from October 20: Laird Monahan

Here's Laird Monahan's remarks at the Lincoln Memorial, as he and his brother finished a five-month walk across America to educate and inspire its citizens to end corporate personhood:

This is not the end.  Today doesn’t even represent the beginning of the end. This is not even the end of the beginning. We can only thank the Roberts Supreme Court for their arrogance in that it gave momentum to this movement that has been languishing in the country’s apathy for so many years.  All the effort that Granny D. accomplished was overturned by five arrogant men.  “Granny D.” Doris Haddock, was most effective and instrumental in helping to get the McCain/Feingold bill passed that limited corporate influence in our elections.  At 89 she started walking across the United States. She had two more birthdays before she finished.  I hope this walk will  honor her memory.  Let us pause for a moment of silence to remember the strength of purpose and dedication she gave to her country.
 
On Sunday, Robin and I spent the afternoon at the Smithsonian Institute's Museum of American History. Among the vast number of exhibits was the acknowledgement that:
 
"Though the Declaration of Independence declared that all men are created equal, race, religion, ethnicity, class and gender limited the rights of many Americans to participate in the Constitution's promise of democratic government. African Americans and women struggled throughout the 19th century for rights that only white male property holders had been granted in the 18th century."
 
This led me to reflect on the Constitution and it’s strength. That whenever people were recognized as included in the meaning of "The People", the Constitution itself was already inclusive. However imperfect it might be, it didn't need any more than the14th and 21st amendments to give Black Americans and Women the right to vote.
 
We are now faced with another problem, unanticipated by the founding fathers; that of the insidious inclusion of corporations as legal persons without the benefit of a Constitutional Amendment. Why would real human persons need Constitutional Amendments to be included in Constitutional benefits and protections but corporations do not?
 
The fact is that corporations never will be real people and would never be able to enjoy a two thirds vote by the Congress, for personhood and inclusion in Constitution as "The People", let alone a 3/4 majority of the states to ratify such a preposterous Amendment.
 
But the Supreme Court of the United States acting on a precedent established surreptitiously in 1886, 124 years ago, took it upon themselves to circumvent any public debate on the subject and decreed, from the bench, a proclamation of such audacity that 80% of the American People would reject it in a moment if they had a chance. These five men; Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Alito, Thomas,  Kennedy and Scalia, have violated over two hundred years of the court’s tradition of judicial restraint; that of addressing an issue that had not been brought before them in a legal case. They took a simple case about a question of accounting and told the litigants that it was a case about free speech and corporate personhood. This was unprecedented judicial hubris.
 
That decision has legalized the intimidation and bribery of our representatives that has been going on behind closed doors for years. It made mockery of our Constitution and turned it into a fraud. The Supreme Court does not care whether the people consent to be governed by corporations or not.

This is the defining issue of our time.  It holds sway over all other social agendas.  It is fundamental to the civil rights of all U.S. citizens and we must engage with everyone regardless of their ideologies.  That means we must talk with Republicans and Tea Partiers.  We must also talk with young people, whose government we are in the process of building and inspire everyone to action.

It is up to us. The footprints that Granny D. left in the dust must be renewed again and again. The people are only dimly aware of the seriousness of this crime against "We the People". We stand today, appointed by our own awareness of our patriotic duty and what we are called to do. We must wake the entire nation and battle against the tyrants who would steal our taxes and representation in our own government. I ask you all to look inward at the patriotic citizen inside and devote your own footsteps to this cause.

Read more...

The Loaded Chamber

Part 1 of a GritTV expose by the US Chamber of Commerce, by Harry Handbury. This big-business lobbying outfit has used the Citizens United decision and its 501 c 6 trade association status to swiftboat any candidate who tries to regulate their top funders, say the experts interviewed here.

Whether or not we see part II of this report depends on whether the filmmakers can raise enough money before Election Day. See the video website to find out more.

Take a look at USChamberWatch for more information on the US Chamber of Commerce, including facts on funding and how local chambers of commerce are publicly distancing themselves from the national group's partisan political activities.

Read more...

Maine's Clean Elections law survives an 11th hour attack

Maine will still be a clean elections state, at least for now, after a decision by the Supreme Court last Friday to deny an injunction to overturn the state's twelve-year-old public campaign funding law. About 300 Maine candidates are running Clean Elections campaigns this season, according to WABI tv, including gubernatorial candidate Libby Mitchell.

The Maine Clean Elections Act, which limits private contributions while providing matching public funds, was challenged by a group called the Respect Maine Political Action Committee and Republican State Representative Andre Cushing. Cushing said he objected to the extra funds Clean Elections candidates can tap if they're opposed by "non-clean" candidates, and the suit also targeted contribution caps and disclosure rules.

Maine's voter-approved clean elections law has been a plus for the state, Ann Luther, co-chair of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, told WABI. "We have more women, more people from diverse backgrounds, more young people seeking office. We have more challengers facing incumbents, fewer uncontested races, we've kept campaign spending down, it's just been a huge success."

Cushing and Respect Maine PAC will have their day in a lower court, for the judge there to hear the merits of their suit. The Court's two-paragraph order simply cited the lateness of the request and the high burden for granting an injunction in denying emergency relief, according to Demos Foundation, which, with co-counsel, including the Brennan Center for Justice and Portland attorney John Brautigam, filed a 47-page amicus brief in support of the state before the Court's decision.

The Court's action means that Maine's Clean Elections system has been preserved intact for this upcoming election - an important victory for public financing of elections since other states, like Arizona, Florida and Connecticut, have seen portions of their programs halted this year.

Read more...

The return of "Political Bribery"

We're working to update to our 2001 booklet, "Political Bribery in the U.S.A.: How Corporations and the Wealthy Buy Power & What We Can Do to Stop It." The revisions will reflect the new reality of corporate political bribery post Citizens United, and the "case studies" sections will be brought up to date. We aim to make it available as an online download as well as a print publication. Your membership will support this work! Please join now with a secure online donation.

To reserve a copy or inquire about bulk sales, please contact the office. We anticipate a single copy will cost $2.75 (postage included), with discounts for bulk purchases.

Read more...