U.S. Supreme Court v. Democracy: Crucial Battle Underway

[marmar]

from ReclaimDemocracy:



U.S. Supreme Court v. Democracy: Crucial Battle Underway
Century-old precedent barring direct corporate spending to control election outcomes is under attack

Published August 8, 2009


After hearing arguments during its last term in the case of Citizens United v FEC, the Supreme Court took unusual action by inviting re-argument of the case to evaluate century-old law (and more recent Supreme Court decisions) that prevent corporations from directly spending company funds to influence election outcomes.

ReclaimDemocracy.org chose not to engage in an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in this case as we have in two related cases in recent years, knowing some of our close allies would (those cases were Randall v. Sorrell and Nike v. Kasky). We believe there is benefit in different organizations delivering the consistent message about the illegitimacy of corproations wielding any political "rights."

At least two amicus briefs filed in support of the appellee (the FEC) directly raise arguments against corporate personhood (all are linked above). It is the centerpiece of one written by Jeffrey Clements on behalf of the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy; Women's International League for Peace & Democracy; Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, et al. Read their press release here.

The other brief was submitted by Demos on behalf of the American Independent Business Alliance. AMIBA's paticipation sets up a stark contrast, pitting America's small businesses against the global corporations-- represented by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce arguing to let corporations dominate elections even more thoroughly. AMIBA's press release offers an idea of the main argument without delving into the full brief.

We'll be covering the case in more depth as the oral arguments approach (Sept. 9) and add links to some of the most interesting perspectives from others on the case (see below).


Notable coverage from other sources

The SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) blog has a detailed case summary and links to every brief filed in the case.

A Century-Old Principle: Keep Corporate Money Out of Elections by Adam Cohen, NY Times, Aug. 11. We never thought we'd read Jefferson's "Crush in its birth" quote repeated by a member of the Times' editorial board. Though Cohen's opinion is in line with our stance, he mistakenly refersto the issue being about corporations contributing to political campaigns. In fact, the case involves corporations spending money to help elect or defeat a candidate on their own, not giving the money to a candidate's election campaign.

The Real Court Radicals by E.J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post column, July 13.



http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/cu_v_fec_summary.php

[Kerrytravelers]

1. So, basically, the SC is looking at allowing corporations to donate directly to political campaigns?

Why does this make me uneasy? Am I reading this incorrectly?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. It should it is one more step

to open fascism, as in the definition of the term, not the imagination of many folks round these parts.

[Kerrytravelers]

3. I had the same thought, but wanted to be sure I was reading everything correctly first.

This is just horrifying. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

[CrispyQ]

6. If I read this correctly, it's not about contributing to campaigns,

it's about "... corporations spending money to help elect or defeat a candidate on their own, not giving the money to a candidate's election campaign."

I read this to mean that corporations will be able to saturate the media with their own (misleading) ads on various candidates. If someone else can shed better light on this, I'm all ears.

[eomer]

9. I think that is right.

Congress passed a law in 2002 (BCRA) that placed new restrictions on corporations' ability to spend money on express advocacy for or against a candidate in a federal election.

A particular corporation, Citizens United (Citizens), brought a lawsuit claiming that the BCRA restrictions are unconstitutional, in violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech.

The District Court ruled against Citizens, citing a Supreme Court decision (McConnell) that said that express advocacy by a corporation is not constitutionally protected.

Here are excerpts from the opinion of the District Court, which is on appeal to the Supreme Court:

     BCRA amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA”).5 BCRA, Pub. L.
No. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81 (2002) (codified at 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.). Passed in 2002, it
represented “the most recent federal enactment designed to purge national politics of what was
conceived to be the pernicious influence of ‘big money’ campaign contributions.” McConnell v.
FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 115 (2003) (internal citation omitted). BCRA introduced a new system for
regulating what it termed “electioneering communications.” Under BCRA § 201, an
“electioneering communication” is:
any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which—
(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;
(II) is made within—
(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff
election for the office sought by the candidate; or
(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a
convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to
nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate
. . .
2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(3)(A). For presidential candidates, the communication must also be capable of
being received by 50,000 or more persons. See 11 C.F.R. § 100.29(b)(3)(ii). Citizens recognizes
that under this statutory definition, both its advertisements and a VOD6 broadcast of The Movie
would be electioneering communications. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 29.) Electioneering
communications are subject to a host of restrictions imposed by BCRA. Three are relevant here:
§ 203, § 201, and § 311. Section 203 prevents corporations and labor unions from funding
electioneering communications out of their general treasury funds, unless the communication is
made to its stockholders or members, to get out the vote, or to solicit donations for a segregated
corporate fund for political purposes. 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2). This provision does not bar
electioneering communications paid for out of a segregated fund that receives donations only
from stockholders, executives and their families. 2 U.S.C. §§ 441b(b)(2)(C), (b)(4)(A).7 Any
electioneering communication that is not prohibited is subject to the disclosure requirements of
§ 201 and the disclaimer requirements of § 311, which are set out in part II.B.
     Citizens’ complaint, filed on December 13, 2007,8 contains two major claims: (1) that
§ 203's prohibition of corporate disbursements for electioneering communications violates the
First Amendment on its face and as applied to The Movie and to the 30-second advertisement
“Questions”9; and (2) that BCRA § 201 requiring disclosure and § 311 requiring disclaimers are
unconstitutional as applied to Citizens’ three advertisements (and to The Movie, if Citizens
broadcasts it in a manner that does not violate § 203).

-snip-

The Movie is thus the functional equivalent of express advocacy. See WRTL, 127 S. Ct. at 2667
(setting out the “functional equivalent” standard). As such, it falls within the holding of
McConnell sustaining, as against the First Amendment, § 203 insofar as it bars corporations from
funding electioneering communications that constitute the functional equivalent of express
advocacy. There is no substantial likelihood that Citizens will prevail on its as-applied challenge
with respect to The Movie.

http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/citizens_united_memo_opinion_pi.pdf

Disclaimer: IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

[CrispyQ]

4. Why don't they simply revoke We the People's right to vote & give it to the corporations instead?

Or they could continue to allow us to vote, but give the corporations one vote per share of stock isssued.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

And this will get zero media coverage. In a fundamental way, this issue is more critical than any other.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. We need to keep the ilusion going

when it is no longer necessary they will take that final step... no doubt in my mind.

[Uncle Joe]

8. I believe they're in the process of doing just that.

Give them enough time and they will.

"Money is speech" and "artificial, semi-immortal, corporations are persons!" With that kind of mentality, what chance do the People stand?

I see the idea of corporate supremacy's legitimacy as being the preeminent antagonist against the American Peoples' freedom, privacy, health care, progress against global warming climate change, and to peace on Earth.

The whole concept is anathema to the Constitution and the spirit of those individual People that died in previous wars throughout our history supposedly defending freedom, liberty and government of "We the People."

[cui bono]

7. k&r