Nothing less than the integrity of our democracy is at stake.
That's why New York is leading a bipartisan coalition of twenty-two states and the District of Columbia in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold state restrictions on corporate campaign spending in the wake of Citizens United, the 2010 decision that prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations in federal elections. Click here to show your support and stand with us.
The current case is called American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, and by applying the Citizens United framework to state and local campaigns, the Court could determine whether voters will have a meaningful voice in many of the elections that matter most in their lives.
The results could be disastrous.
For more than a century, states have sought to protect the integrity of the democratic process at the state and local level by regulating corporate spending in elections. Now this challenge to Montana's campaign finance law seeks to overturn state restrictions on corporate money without even giving the state, or other states that would be affected, the benefit of a full hearing.
I am leading the states' effort to uphold the Montana law. Why? Because if the law is struck down, we can expect a shock and awe campaign of corporate funded ads in state and local elections all across the country. If you agree, click here to show your support and stand with us.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that sections of the federal campaign finance law known as McCain-Feingold imposed unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment rights of corporations.
The result of that ruling has been a super PAC arms race in federal elections of which we are only beginning to understand the implications.
It is bad enough at the federal level, but the impact at the state and local level could be even worse. The political system will be awash in corporate money. To put it in perspective, Exxon Mobil and JPMorgan Chase each made more in profits in the first quarter of 2012 alone than the entire state budget of Montana. Without a doubt, multinational corporations like these have the resources to overwhelm the voices of the people.
State campaign finance laws differ from the federal law that was struck down in Citizens United because they apply to a much wider range of offices -- including judge, sheriff, and county prosecutor -- that were not considered by the Court in the earlier case. For judicial and law enforcement positions, it is particularly important to avoid any appearance of bias, special access, or influence.
While our coalition believes that the Montana law can be upheld without reconsidering Citizens United, we also believe this case can be more than a defensive battle. That's why we have respectfully urged the Supreme Court, either in this case or in a future case, to reconsider its ruling in Citizens United. The Court held that unlimited corporate spending does not create a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. But it would be tough to find many voters, or even candidates, who really believe that. Now that we've seen the impact of unlimited corporate spending in practice, it would be a welcome move by the Court to take a more realistic view of the impact of money in politics.
But whether the Supreme Court chooses to revisit Citizens United now or not, the Court should not strike down a duly enacted state law without even calling for full briefing and oral argument.
The Court should decline to hear the case, and allow lower courts to continuing working out the question of how Citizens United applies to state and local campaign finance laws. Or, if the Court intends to consider the case, it should allow a full briefing and oral arguments, including by states like New York, and the 21 states that joined us in this effort, that would also be affected by a ruling in this case. Our elected representatives wisely enacted laws to protect our state and local governments from undue, outside influence. Click here to show your support and stand with me because we deserve the opportunity to defend those laws -- and our democracy.
Follow Eric T. Schneiderman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AGSchneiderman
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Meanwhile, many errors by the Judges need to be grasped by the voters who can influence their Congressmen.
First, the I.R.S. Tax Code already identifies a corporation as an entity and not as a person. So the Justices have already violated a Federal Tax Law.
Second, a person is one human who can stand before a court to represent himself. A corporation cannot, because it's identity exists only as a company name. So corporations have never been recognized as people in State government which issues licenses to corporations. Thus, the Justices have violated the license laws of every State.
And third, money is recognized as a means of speech by the Justices. This is a violation of the Commerce Laws which declares money as barter (a traded item) commodity.
The U.S. Supreme Court has three strikes against its erroneous decision. And even Joe Citizen recognizes this gaffe as pure dumbness.
Congress needs to overturn this error by the Highest Court in the land as soon as possible.
The problem is that even though we all know that money has a corrupting influence on politics, the current Congress is unlikely to create the necessary evidentiary record, make the required findings, and then re-enact McCain-Feingold.
democracy" how did this country exist for the 220 years before it was enacted? Were we only delivered this democracy only AFTER the Saints McCain and Feingold gifted it to us? We truly aren't worthy of such greatness.
Carl Mayer, lead attorney for TEAM: "Of all the briefs filed and arguments made in this case, TEAM’s brief is one of only two that strike at the heart of the Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. In litigation, there is nothing more fundamental to winning a case than to deny jurisdiction to a court when it is not warranted. The 11th Amendment clearly restricts the Supreme Court in this case against a sovereign state and we can win solely on that basis.” http://www.11thamendment.org/press-release/
"State voters uniquely possess a right to a "republican form of government." This right, "guarantee[d] to every state in this union" by the Guaranty Clause, Article IV, §4, assures the state's citizens against the dilution of that "consent of the governed" which legitimizes a republican state. State elections undermined by corruption are inherently not "republican," and thereby violate the constitutional guarantee. Cf. Alden, 527 U.S. 750-51 (“political accountability ... essential to ... republican form of government")."
[from Essential Information/TEAM companion amicus brief, by Robert M. Hager, pp. 14-15; to be released on TEAM's website soon]
Check these corporate personhood ideas to overturn Citizens United:
Constitutional Amendment - http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US82
Statutory Limitation - http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US18
Thomas Jefferson even argued that because the First Amendment operated as a restraint only on the federal government, the states "retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech ... may be abridged," (Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm)
The First Amendment does not include money, that is the Supreme Court's interpretation. As Justice Frankfurter wrote, “[t]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what [justices] have said about it.” Graves v. New York, 306 US 466, 491-92 (1939).
Money was around back in 1787-91, and if the Framers wanted to include it in the First Amendment they would have. In fact, the Founders did not even think it was possible for money to control elections (see Hamilton in Federalist 60):
". . . The truth is, that there is no method of securing to the rich the preference apprehended . . . With a disposition to invade the essential rights of the community, and with the means of gratifying that disposition, is it presumable that the persons who were actuated by it would amuse themselves in the ridiculous task of fabricating election laws for securing a preference to a favorite class of men?”
Should We the People allow (a libertarian view of) the First Amendment to trump the very form of government established by the Constitution?
Any revisit of the ruling from CU would be an analysis under the US constitution. The other states and DC are not governed by the Montana constitution, and a reading of its text suggests that there is nothing that will distinguish the language from the US constitution.
Stop whining.
Ignore any ads or other messages you don't like or don't believe.
Go out and vote, and write to your representatives about your opinions on issues you care about.