Reclaim Democracy!

  • Home
  • Issues
    • The Right to Vote
      • U.S. Voting History
    • Corporate Personhood
    • Citizens United
    • Independent Business
    • All Topics
  • Resources
    • Presentations & Workshops
    • What You Can Do
    • Ed Board Meetings
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Op-eds
    • Talk Radio
  • Donate
  • About
  • Contact

Search Results for: citizens united

Montana Supreme Court Rejects Argument that Citizens United Ruling Voids State Law

September 3, 2012 by staff

By Jeff Milchen
First published January 12, 2012 in the San Francisco Chronicle

On December 30, the Montana Supreme Court issued a stunning ruling, rejecting arguments that the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United vs. FEC applied to Montana’s century-old ban on direct corporate election spending. The 5-2 ruling overturned a lower court and reinstated Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act, a citizen initiative passed to confront some of the most overt corporate corruption in American history.

While the Montana ruling detailed several ways in which the Corrupt Practices Act differed from the federal statute struck down in Citizens United, the justices clearly rejected much of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale. Citizens United struck down a federal law that prohibited corporations from directly spending company funds to advocate for or against political candidates.

One key distinction in Montana’s case: the state presented extensive evidence of actual corruption, which the U.S. Supreme Court found lacking in Citizens United. And while Citizens United did not address nonpartisan and judicial elections, Montana’s law protects the very justices who decided the case from being intimidated or corrupted.

Of course, money drowning out the voice of citizens can happen in almost any election now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court bestowing Bill of Rights protections upon corporations – entities never mentioned in our Constitution. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United also asserted that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” a view rejected by the Montana Justices.

That astounding claim promptly birthed super PACs, which can accept unlimited donations to support their favored candidate and attack his or her opponents. Fittingly, an obvious victim of super PACs in the current presidential primaries is Newt Gingrich, who previously hailed Citizens United as a “great victory for free speech.”

In November and early December, Gingrich sat atop Republican primary polls. Then, in December, he was slammed by about $4 million worth of negative ads by Restore Our Future, an “independent” super PAC controlled by Mitt Romney supporters, including his 2008 campaign director.

The ad blitz drove down Gingrich’s poll numbers immediately, and he finished a distant fourth in the Iowa Caucus, won by Romney.

All of the Republican contenders have such PACs working on their behalf. By the time the public knows the people or corporations behind the super PAC attacks, four primaries will be complete and the winner may be apparent. According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning, the investments of PAC donors will earn them no influence with Romney.

Perhaps the presidential primaries will further alter the battle lines for campaign finance disputes. While Attorney General Steve Bullock, a Democrat, is defending Montana’s law, it’s supported across party lines. Bob Brown, a Republican fixture who served in Montana’s legislature and as Secretary of State, provided testimony arguing the ban on corporate spending was necessary to preserve political integrity.

Montana’s history of blatant corruption persuaded even the state ACLU Foundation to file a brief defending the Corrupt Practices Act. The move startled election law followers, because the ACLU called (pdf) the similar federal law “suppression of core political speech” in Citizens United and has challenged election spending limits for decades. (The national ACLU has not yet altered its advocacy for “corporate free speech.”)

Independent business owners are another nontraditional ally for reformers that spoke out to uphold Montana’s corporate spending ban, both individually and working with the American Independent Business Alliance. Small businesses increasingly recognize they lose out when large corporations are permitted to translate their wealth into political power that yields tax loopholes, subsidies and other preferential treatment.

The Montana Court’s rebuke of Citizens United was a legal first, but could be considered part of a broader public uprising. Los Angeles and New York City top a growing list of cities to formally call for a constitutional amendment to explicitly state that Bill of Rights protections apply to human beings, not corporations. Dozens more communities now are organizing to advance such an amendment, with national support from groups like Move to Amend and Free Speech for People .

Of course, one island of relatively uncorrupted elections does little for the rest of our country. The Montana ruling is cause for celebration, but its value can only be realized if other states and courts follow. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely and, without far more visible public advocacy for the democratic republic promised by our Constitution, the Roberts court is unlikely to veer from its agenda of steadily enlarging corporate privilege.

Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court is a political institution that responds to sufficiently broad and deep expressions of public opinion, as it did previously with many civil rights concerns. We can’t wait in hope of more enlightened justices — we must make the current ones see the light.

Jeff Milchen formerly served as director of ReclaimDemocracy.org. He is a co-founder of the Montana-based American Independent Business Alliance, a network of 80 community organizations supporting local independent businesses. AMIBA was party to amicus curiae briefs in both Citizens United v FEC and Western Tradition Partnership v Montana.

For more on why independent business advocates are engaged, see Granting Corporations Bill of Rights Protections Is Not “Pro-business .”

More on Corporate Personhood
More on Citizens United

Filed Under: Corporate Personhood

Montana’s Rejection of Citizens United as Precedent Goes to U.S. Supreme Court

February 10, 2012 by staff

Today Justice Kennedy granted a stay (suspending the Montana Supreme Court ruling and Montana’s ban on corporate electioneering) sought by the plaintiffs, pending the filing an appeal by the American Tradition Partnership. This commentary by election law expert Rick Hasen nicely summarizes the meaning and consequences of this action.

On February 10, the James Madison Center asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the Montana Supreme Court ruling that upheld the state’s Corrupt Practices Act, which bans direct corporate electioneering in state elections. The Montana ruling was the first instance of a state successfully defending a ban on corporate electoral spending (see this op-ed on that tremendous victory in December) since the 2010 Citizens United v FEC ruling. The SCOTUS Blog reports Justice Anthony Kennedy asked for a response from Montana in just one week.

The American Tradition Partnership and other corporations challenging Montana’s law filed the stay application, which would block the Montana Supreme Court ruling and allow corporations to spend freely in Montana elections this year, pending a petition for certiorari (review) to be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by the plaintiffs. The stay application also asks that the Montana Supreme Court decision be summarily reversed (i.e. without any hearing or opportunity for Montana to argue its case).

One way or another, this case will be a pivotal one for the Democracy Movement. We urge you to do all you can to express your disgust with the idea of allowing corporations to claim the political rights of citizens and support the right of citizens to protect the integrity of their state elections. For further background on the Western Tradition Partnership v Montana case, see:

  • Montana Supreme Court Rejects Argument that Citizens United Voids State Law
  • 10 Ways Citizens United Endangers Democracy
  • Top Ten Nelson Take-downs of Citizens United

Notably, both of Montana’s U.S. Senators have stated support for amending the Constitution to protect elections from being corrupted by corporate electioneering. Senator Jon Tester opined recently in the Billings Gazette and Max Baucus drafted his own Amendment last year specifically to authorize regulation of corporate election spending. Neither has indicated willingness to directly confront the Supreme Court’s invention of applying constitutional rights to corporations.

Both Senators are mainstream Democrats and among the leading recipients of corporate-connected campaign contributions (Baucus from health care and health insurance interests and Tester from credit card companies and large banks).

See our tips on writing effective letters to the editor. Please contact us for help with any writing or outreach you might undertake and consider donating to help us make the most of this opportunity.

Filed Under: Corporate Personhood

Citizens United v. FEC Ruling & Selected Media Coverage

January 21, 2010 by staff

Updated January 21, 2010

See our comprehensive introduction to Citizens United for background

Court Opinions (Issued January 20, 2010)

  • Majority (5-4) Opinion 
  • Stevens’ Dissenting Opinion (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor)
  • Highlights, sans citations, excerpted here
  • Concurring opinions by Roberts — Scalia — Thomas (Dissenting in part)

Notable Analysis and Commentary

There were 2000+ articles published within 24 hours of the Court’s announcement, this is just a sampling.

  • Election law scholar Rick Hasen analyzed the case for Slate. For a comprehensive pre-ruling overview, see his case preview.
  • Brenda Wright, Daniel Greenwood and Jeffrey Clements all contributed notable blog posts for the American Constitution Society.
  • Ciara Torres-Spelliscy wrote on the potential for impeding corporate dominance by requiring shareholder approval for political spending.
  • Dahlia Lithwick reported for Salon.
  • The New York Times editorialized against the ruling.

Pre-ruling coverage

  • The Wall St Journal noticed Justice Sotomayor’s critique of corporate personhood during oral argument
  • Corporations Are Not People by Jamie Raskin (NPR)
  • Supreme Court to Hear Key Case… by Meg White (Buzzflash)
  • The Real Court Radicals by E.J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post column
  • Keep My Investments Out Of Politics by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy in Forbes magazine
  • A Century-Old Principle: Keep Corporate Money Out of Elections by Adam Cohen, NY Times

 Notable Quotes

“The bottom line is, the Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next November’s election. It won’t be the Republican or the Democrats and it won’t be the American people; it will be Corporate America.” –Senator Charles Schumer

“While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.” –Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent

“Five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.” — Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter and commnetator at NY Times


Filed Under: Corporate Personhood, Transforming Politics

The Citizens’ Presidential Debate Commission

July 16, 2012 by staff

The nationally televised presidential debates are the single most influential forum for most Americans in deciding whether they should vote and for whom to vote. They offer a rare opportunity to hear candidates’ ideas unedited and in context.

Since 1988, these debates have been controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private corporation created and controlled by individuals directly affiliated with the Democratic and Republican parties. The CPD operates with no public oversight, and its ability to serve democracy is compromised by its bipartisan control.

The two major harms perpetuated by the CPD are the exclusion of serious and popular candidates from outside of the two dominant parties and the exclusion of many vital issues from questions asked of the candidates.

Citizens’ Debate Commission Objectives:

Previous attempts to open the CPD events to deserving candidates and excluded issues repeatedly have failed. Therefore, we reject attempts to persuade the CPD to serve democracy and instead have helped initiate the Citizens’ Debate Commission (CDC) in order to create substantive, fair and non-partisan debates.

The CDC is a truly non-partisan coalition, representing a broad spectrum of views and issues, that will present a series of four debates among candidates in the 2004 general election for President of the United States. The Commission also will host one debate among candidates running for Vice-President.

Presidential Debate Criteria

The Citizens’ Debate Commission employs the criteria proposed by the Appleseed Citizens’ Task Force on Fair Debates

The first debate shall be open to all contenders who:

  1. Meet constitutional requirements to hold the office;
  2. Have qualified on enough state ballots to potentially win 270 electoral votes outright;
  3. Possess a substantial level of popular support. To gauge support, the CDC will independently commission polls of the general public or work with established polling organizations that are willing to construct unbiased polls (and ones not limited to habitual voters) 7-14 days prior to the first debate. Candidates must meet one of the following two measures of support:
    1. The declared support of 5% or more of respondents; or
    2. 50% or more of respondents say they want to hear the candidate debate.

Candidates meeting either one of these criteria in the first poll will be invited to participate in the first and second debates, after which a new poll will be executed. Those who meet the same criteria in the second poll will be invited to participate in the third and fourth debates.

Vice-Presidential Debate

The vice-presidential candidates on tickets meeting the criteria to participate in the third and fourth presidential debates will be invited to one debate among the candidates for vice-president. This debate will occur after the second debate, but before the third.

CDC Aims and Strategy

CDC will offer the opportunity for debates presenting a wider range of views than has occurred in any prior televised debates in general presidential elections. An expanded range of discussion will be facilitated regardless of whether or not more than two candidates qualify for any debates. Empowering and encouraging moderators to ask challenging follow-up questions, and allowing opportunities for genuine citizen participation are examples of how this will be accomplished.

The CDC will:

  • present the most widely viewed, covered and respected presidential debates;
  • have all CDC debates televised by the major broadcast networks and independent media;
  • attract all candidates for the presidency who meet participation criteria;
  • further democracy through debates that will include a wider range of participants and ideas and structured to challenge and engage candidates and the audience to a degree not reached by CPD events.

CDC Structure and Governance

The CDC is a new non-profit organization separate from ReclaimDemocracy.org and includes organizational representatives from across the ideological spectrum. Decisions will be made by a board of directors representing a variety of non-partisan organizations with broad constituencies.

The CDC is not a forum for furthering specific political parties or agendas, but to promote and present a debate series with democracy at its core and facilitate the discussion of a broad range of issues that have been ignored in CPD debates.

Because the public deserves televised presidential debates that operate unmistakably in the public interest, the CDC only will accept organizational funding from entities that are non-partisan and non-profit.

The Inaugural CDC Board of Directors is:

  • John B. Anderson, former U.S. Congressman and Chair of the Center for Voting and Democracy;
  • Angela ‘Bay’ Buchanan, president of The American Cause;
  • Veronica de la Garza, executive director of the Youth Vote Coalition;
  • Norman Dean, director of Friends of the Earth;
  • George Farah, director of Open Debates and author of “No Debate”;
  • Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch;
  • Tom Gerety, director, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law;
  • Jehmu Greene, director of Rock the Vote;
  • Alan Keyes, U.S. Ambassador;
  • Jeff Milchen, director of ReclaimDemocracy.org;
  • Larry Noble, former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission;
  • Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council;
  • Chellie Pingree, president and CEO of Common Cause;
  • Randall Robinson, founder of TransAfrica Forum;
  • Dan Stein, director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform;
  • Mark Weisbrot, co-director of Center for Economic and Policy Research;
  • Paul Weyrich, chair and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation (since deceased)

Editor’s note: Our work to build the CDC is unrelated to any presidential candidate or party.

 

Filed Under: Transforming Politics

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 20
  • Next Page »

Search our website

Our Mission

Reclaim Democracy! works toward a more democratic republic, where citizens play an active role in shaping our communities, states, and nation. We believe a person’s influence should be based on the quality of their ideas, skills, and energy, and not based on wealth, race, gender, or orientation.

We believe every citizen should enjoy an affirmative right to vote and have their vote count equally.

Learn more about our work.

Subscribe to Newsletter







Donate to Our Work

We rely on individual gifts for more than 95% of our funding. Our hard-working volunteers make your gift go a long way. We're grateful for your help, and your donation is tax-deductible.

Join Us on Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Weekly Quote

“No [real] journalist makes $5 million a year... Those in power fear and dislike real journalists."

-- Chris Hedges

Copyright © 2021 · Reclaim Democracy!