START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Feb 9, 2012

We can not fully address the current campaigns, nor the growth of the OWS movement without at least a cursory look at the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court.

Most do realize this is not a new battle in the halls of justice, rather one that has been continuing for well over a hundred years. The primary point is that even Teddy Roosevelt in 1907 saw a definite need for campaign regulation and reform. The underlying problem has long been that of whether or not a corporation or anyone, has the right to give unlimited funds to a campaign or party be to state or Federal.

The question today is repeated often, “Are corporations people and therefore entitled to donate funds to campaigns?”

Under the current Supreme Court the decision was that all past reforms and need for reporting in a manner of full disclosure was struck down. Not only would corporations be granted full personhood, but they could donate as much money without disclosure to any campaign. In fact, Justice Thomas felt that this decision did not go far enough in allowing more powers to corporate entities. The justification lies with the interpretation of the First Amendment, and the freedom of speech clause. This Court finds that freedom of speech is as equal to each citizen as it is to all corporations.

Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission grew from a limited question about a political documentary [Hillary:The movie] to a broad challenge to the government's right to restrict corporations from spending money to support or oppose political candidates.

Encompassing questions on First Amendment rights, the power of corporations and the influence of money on political elections, the case has created an assortment of

strange bedfellows. Conservatives and liberals appear on both sides, either to defend the government's right to restrict corporate political advocacy or, on the other side, to argue that such regulations are a violation of the First Amendment.

When the court first announced it would be reconsidering the case last September, Bill Moyers spoke with two prominent lawyers involved in the case: Trevor Potter, president and general counsel of The Campaign Legal Center, who submitted a brief to the court in support of the F.E.C.; and Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment attorney, who argued before the court on behalf of Citizens United.

**** From Bill Moyers

Some of the most straightforward proposals call for increased disclosure requirements by individuals and organizations engaging in political speech. Mandatory disclosure plays a big part in the Court's majority reasoning that unregulated expenditures will not cause undue harm to the integrity of elections. In his opinion Kennedy writes, "With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters." Yet, as Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation points out, disclosure requirements aren't up to the standards the Court seems to think they are: "The disclosure system they describe doesn't yet exist. The current disclosure system is insufficiently 'rapid and informative' and does not make effective use of modern technology." The Sunlight Foundation has laid out a list of disclosure reforms they'd like to see.

One more consideration is that of disclosure to the owners of a corporation, technically the share holders. This point is addressed by The Sunlight foundation:

“Some proposed changes focus on the mechanics of how corporations actually 'speak.' For instance, if a publicly traded corporation spends 'its' money on political speech, that money technically belongs to shareholders. Several bills have been introduced before Congress and in state legislatures to require that corporate executives either inform, or receive consent from shareholders before spending money on political speech. **

Taken from the summary of Maryland’s proposed share holders rights: (SB570)

“A related question is that of foreign participation in elections. Current law bars foreign nationals from contributing to federal campaign committees. The Citizens United ruling raises questions as to whether foreign-controlled corporations or corporations with foreign shareholders have a right to spend money on political speech. Several members of Congress have introduced bills to prohibit foreign money from making its way into U.S. elections through corporate speech.”

****

As the law currently stands in complete opposition to all pre-existing laws on campaign donations and transparency to the citizens, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision with each group standing in total opposition to one another and along political lines for the 5 consenting votes, we have seen the operational results.

Currently, though it may not be fully factual that our elected officials are bought and paid for by the highest bidder, that is how many Americans observe the current election climate. What is need is full transparency in order for the citizens to know who is making the donations and how those monies are being used. Though there is once again, a group trying to bring this case before the Supreme Court, I doubt we will see much in the way of changes with current sitting court.

An often quoted aphorism is perfectly fitted to this situation. “Justice must not only be done but must seen to done.” There in lies the problem, US citizens do not see justice being done. They want and need to have any and all campaign finance to be under full scrutiny of a separate legal commission.

 





 


Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Thursday February 9, 2012, 9:49 am
Tags: ameican [add/edit tags]

Group Discussions
Comments
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:

Dorothy N. (63)
Friday November 9, 2012, 5:48 pm




The findings of this corrupt court do not hold in many respects, particularly as claims were made that the intent of the US Founding Fathers was carefully considered and followed:

1st - the US Founding Fathers had great concerns about corporate/wealthy interests interfering in politics and policy and sought, so far as they could, to protect against this possibility, so that this decision goes directly against the principles of democracy and the US Constitution itself and the intent of the Founders

2nd - money is not speech, speech being equally available to all capable of so communicating and allowing equal access to speech for all, so far as is physically possible, whereas large sums of money are available to only a few, so that this decision goes directly against the principles of democracy and the US Constitution itself and the intent of the US Founders

3rd - the people within each corporation each already have equal individual rights to equal access to speech, and allowing the largest groups of these a second set of 'speech rights' greater than those of the individuals based on their greater access to greater sums of money acts directly against the principles of equal rights, treatment and opportunity inherent to democracy itself, the US Constitution and the intent of the US Founders

4th - the legal ability of individual citizens to contribute toward campaigns was not increased as regards their ability to donate, in money or in kind, even had the average person been able to do so, (an impossibility so far as the average person matching the millions provided by corporations and the wealthiest) so that in this regard as well, this decision goes directly against the principles of democracy and the US Constitution itself and the intent of the US Founders

5th - Those making/validating the Citizen's United decision reached, as it has been pointed out, a conclusion in defiance of all facts and in defiance of accepted law, tradition and intent, against the interests of the country and the people, so that this decision goes directly against the principles of democracy and the US Constitution itself and the intent of the US Founders

Those making/validating the Citizen's United decision thereby proved themselves corrupt and/or legally incompetent and/or mentally incompetent and therefore this decision must be nullified and those responsible must be removed and replaced with competent judges capable of reaching impartial, sensible and reasonable decisions based on both reality and valid, uncorrupted law incorporating the principles of democracy and the US Constitution itself.

Author

Kit B.
female, age 66, single, 1 child
Lewisville, TX, USA
KIT'S SHARES
Nov
7
(72 comments  |  discussions )
\nEach of the names below have signed the petition Stop Government Sponsored Horse and Animal Theft. A petition which we now know to be posted with the appearance of animal welfare when in fact the actual purpose is very different as the last paragraph...
Feb
9
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\nBeyond the obvious and much discussed problems in America, one is given only cursory attention. That of education. If we take a moment to set aside the rhetoric of our politicians and even that of citizens, the focus is on the economy. I can’t ...
(1 comments  |  discussions )
\nWhy vote for Obama?\r\nWhen considering a vote for the office of the president; far more should come into the decision than just a hard and fast ideal of whether one has voted consistently for a democrat or republican. Each election term we are offered...


SHARES FROM KIT'S NETWORK
Feb
18
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\r\\nCOME TO: \\r\\nTucson\\\' s 32nd Annual Peace Fair and Music Festival2014 Theme: Climate JusticeThis FREE event is Arizona\\\'s largest gathering of Peace, Justice, and Environmental groups, with Live Music, Tables, Food, Entertainment, Children\\\'s ...
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\n\\r\\nHello my C2 Family, \\r\\nFirst let me say Thank You to those of you who have so sweetly fwd my posts. You are SO AWESOME!! I will never forget your help. Anytime I can repay the favour, please tell me. Second, my Submit button has disappeared lea...
Feb
16
by Rock H.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\n \\r\\nIn recognition of the environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, the Sierra  Club  is  pleased  to announce a week  long  vegan “volunteer  vacation”  in  Yosemite National Park, Calif...
Feb
13
(0 comments  |  discussions )
Wanted to say that I try not to do too many forwards to my Friends.  When I do forward an article or petition, I hope you k
(0 comments  |  discussions )
Please sign this petition asking shelters to open before temperatures hit life-threatening levels: http://www.thepetitionsit e.co


MORE MEMBER BLOGS
Mar 31
Blog: How to Extend the Life of your TRIAD Boilers by Kayleigh L.
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — \\nHow to Extend the Life of your TRIAD Boilers \\r\\n \\r\\nCorlis Engine Review\\r\\nEvery user desires to prolong the life of a unit. TRIAD assists their clients in achieving this important objective by informing them of ways they can avoid problems... more
Feb 27
Blog: Dr Oz Weight Loss - The 100% Natural And Very Efficient Diet Pill by Debra S.
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — \\nYes, Dr. Oz called Garcinia Cambogia Extract (HCA) the Holy Grail of Weight Loss. He went on to say, “Anytime I see a scientist get this excited about something like Garcinia Cambogia Extract and when I looked through some of this research and... more
Blog: My Favorite Websites by krysta I.
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — \\nIFAW: www.ifaw.org\\r\\nOCEANA www.oceana.org\\r\\nPETA: www.peta.org\\r\\nEARTH 911: www.earth911.org\\r\\nANI MALs ASIA: www.animalsasia.org\\r\\n \\r\\n\\r\\n\\n more
Feb 21
Blog: testing one two three by Geoff M.
(0 comments  |  discussions ) — hello world more
Blog: Garcinia Cambogia Reviews From Actual People Garcinia Pure Extract Is A Huge Success February 20 by Dany M.
(0 comments  |  0 discussions ) — \\nGarcinia Cambogia Reviews From Actual People Garcinia Pure Extract Is A Huge Success February 20\\r\\nGarcinia Cambogia System The Dr. Oz Lose Weight Quick Process Without Having Side Effects\\r\\nHe went on to say, “At any time I see a researcher... more
 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.