Citizens United: Why We Care. The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters. On October 21st, 2012 at 6:00 am Opinion by John Dunba — Center for Public Integrity By now most folks know that the U.S. Supreme Court did something that changed how money can be spent in elections and by whom, but what happened and why should you care? The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.
In a nutshell, the high court’s 5–4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The decision did not affect contributions. So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been written about contributions? For that, we need to look at another court case — SpeechNow.org v. ‘Corporations are people’ notion is misplaced - Letters. “Dark Money” Group Central to Citizens United May Have Misled IRS | Big Money 2012 | FRONTLINE. On Oct. 30, in Big Sky, Big Money, a special investigation in collaboration with Marketplace, FRONTLINE travels to Montana, the remote epicenter of the campaign finance debate for a tale of money, politics and intrigue that shows how the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has changed campaigns in America.
(Check local listings.) A western nonprofit that played a key role in freeing corporate spending on elections nationwide appears to have misled the IRS when it applied for the tax-exempt status that shields its donors from being publicly disclosed. Documents obtained by ProPublica and FRONTLINE show that Western Tradition Partnership, now known as American Tradition Partnership, said it would not attempt to sway elections when it asked the IRS to recognize it as a tax-exempt social welfare organization in late 2008.
Donny Ferguson, listed as the national director of media of American Tradition Partnership on the group’s website, did not return a call or an email for comment. Employers and Employees: Contemporary Liberalism and Class Warfare, Part 2. I wrote yesterday about liberal attacks on employers who communicate with their employees about politics and about how particular policies would impact their businesses. I noted that in this respect, the Citizens United decision has been interpreted as leveling the playing field between companies and unions, which have been telling their members–both willing and unwilling members–how to vote for many years.
I argued that most workers identify their own economic interests closely with those of their employers, as they should. It therefore makes sense for employers to communicate with their employees about public policy. If an employee isn’t interested in, or persuaded by, his employer’s views, he can simply ignore them. I linked to a left-wing site called In These Times that attacked Mitt Romney because he encouraged employers to communicate their views to employees. But it didn’t stop there. In These Times went on to attack the left’s bete noir, the Koch brothers, on the same ground: New Haven aldermen target Citizens United court ruling (documents)- The New Haven Register - Serving New Haven, Connecticut. NEW HAVEN -- The city's Board of Alderman has sent a letter to state legislators asking for a state constitutional convention "to adopt an amendment overturning Citizens United and enacting meaningful campaign finance reform. " In May, 104 state legislators sent a similar letter to Connecticut's congressional delegation, asking that they take seriously a constitutional amendment to overturn the controversial U.S.
Supreme Court ruling commonly known as Citizens United. The Supreme Court, according to an analysis by Connecticut's Office of Legislative Research, "ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. " A bill intended to increase reporting requirements for political donors passed the state's General Assembly this year but was ultimately vetoed by Gov. "The governor has consistently said that the Citizens United case was wrongly decided," Malloy spokesman Andrew Doba said in an email. According to state Rep. About that Justice Souter Draft Dissent in Citizens United.
Freedom of Beach: Dump 'Citizens United' With rigged debates, pay-to-play races and a money-mad media that feeds at the same corporate trough as the candidates, what’s a person to do to send a message in today’s America? San Francisco taxi driver Brad Newsham decided to get down and if not dirty, then at least sandy. This Saturday, with 1,000 like-minded people, he lay his body down on a San Francisco beach and spelled out “DUMP CITIZENS UNITED!” In huge human letters, complete with exclamation mark.
(Photo by John Montgomery) The enormously unpopular Supreme Court ruling may not get much visibility in the televised debates, but the message sent by 1,000 bodies on a beach was visible from miles away to anyone traveling through San Francisco airspace. Is this what’s left of our democracy? Freedom of beach? Still, our censored and servile media debate don’t come close to expressing how deeply people feel about money in politics. . © 2012 The Nation. 23 Ballot Measures to Keep an Eye On. On November 6, Americans will vote on at least 174 ballot measures in 38 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, weighing in on everything from legalizing marijuana to abolishing the death penalty.
Here's a look at some of the most prominent issues being decided: Banning Same-Sex MarriageMaryland and Washington passed bills earlier this year legalizing same-sex marriage. But gay marriage opponents, led by groups like the National Organization for Marriage, are backing referendums in both states that would prevent the laws from being enacted. Marriage equality supporters have outraised their rivals $10.5 million to $1.8 million in Washington and $3.2 million to $835,000 in Maryland (including $250,000 apiece from libertarian hedge fund manager Paul Singer and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has pledged an additional $500,000 to boost marriage equality supporters in Maine, Minnesota, and Washington). Reclaiming the Grand Canyon? Report Details Massive Chemical Investments in Lobbying and Campaigns. WASHINGTON --(ENEWSPF)--October 23 - Determined to block efforts to strengthen the 36-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, chemical interests have invested $375 million since 2005 to elect and influence industry-friendly political leaders, Common Cause said in a report released today.
“The dimensions of chemical industry spending documented in this study, 'Toxic Spending,' are staggering,” said James Browning, Common Cause’s regional director for state operations and a principal author of the report. “By following the money, we see how and why the industry has been so successful in blocking attempts to strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act.” In the current campaign, the industry has capitalized on the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision by putting $23 million into “Super PACs,” supporting its favored candidates or opposing its adversaries, according to the study. In Citizens United v. Other major recipients of industry support include Rep. How Companies Have Assembled Political Profiles for Millions of Internet Users. (Photo: bark)If you're a registered voter and surf the web, one of the sites you visit has almost certainly placed a tiny piece of data on your computer flagging your political preferences. That piece of data, called a cookie, marks you as a Democrat or Republican, when you last voted, and what contributions you've made.
It also can include factors like your estimated income, what you do for a living, and what you've bought at the local mall. Across the country, companies are using cookies to tailor the political ads you see online. One of the firms is CampaignGrid, which boasted in a recent slideshow, "Internet Users are No Longer Anonymous. " The slideshow includes an image of the famous New Yorker cartoon from 1993: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
" The slideshow was online until last week, when the company removed it after we asked for comment. Online targeting has taken off this campaign season. Few of the companies involved in the targeting talk about it publicly. 1. Ben of Ben & Jerry’s to protest, hand out ice cream in NYC to overturn Citizens United.
Oct 23, 2012 One year after they made big political news for becoming the first major company to publicly support Occupy Wall Street, Ben & Jerry’s is still at it. Ben (of Ben & Jerry) will be on hand tomorrow in New York’s Union Square to demand that the Supreme Court overturn its Citizens United decision that allows corporations and rich people to donate anonymously and in unlimited amounts to political campaigns via SuperPAC groups. Ben will protest, he will stamp and stampede—he will hand out ice cream. Proving once again that nothing goes together like politics and ice cream, B&J will team up with a grass-roots campaign called Stamp Stampede.
A press email says, “Tables will be set up stamping dollar bills with various slogans targeting the corrosive influence of money on politics. The protest will go down all day in Union Square. This is the first year in which total political spending is expected to exceed $1 billion. Also, free ice cream. 11am to 6pm tomorrow in Union Square. Nine States Backing Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United | Taylor Marsh.
This story won’t gain any traction in the midst of the presidential campaign season that’s setting new records on money spent. I mean, where’s the entertainment in dull stuff like Citizens United when you can keep score (at least on the Democratic side of things) with Big Bird, binders, bayonets and horses? The thing is, it’s not likely to gain much public attention after November 6, either. Who wants to think about campaign funding right after an election? Maybe later … From Common Dreams: (emphasis added) New Jersey became the ninth state to back a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United on Thursday. There are other efforts being made toward highlighting what the euphemistically named “Citizens United” is adding to our already well funded Corporate Parties.
The 2012 election will be the most expensive and least transparent presidential campaign of the modern era. There are drop-down menus where you can select a PAC, donor or non-profit group to read a full profile: In the U.S. election, too much free speech is suddenly a bad thing. A grand experiment in freedom of speech in the United States seems to be backfiring, as politicians are now questioning the wisdom of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited spending on election advertisements. Proponents of unfettered political speech originally hailed Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as a godsend, but those same people now think that allowing anonymous groups, many of which have no direct ties to a political party or candidate, to spend millions on apocalyptic advertisements that make misleading or outright false assertions results in a disengaged electorate and a debasement of the democratic process.
This sobering second thought is a welcome development, and an important lesson for Canada. To be honest, the politicians and their backers who originally supported the decision but now question it are motivated partly by the fact that the advertisements of mass destruction it unleashed are being trained on them too. GUEST OPINION: Mass. fighting back against Citizens United. The First Amendment Is Just Fine As Is - Room for Debate. Sherrod Brown Interview - Q&A: Sherrod Brown vs. the Citizens United Volcano. Calling from the road earlier this week between one campaign stop in Ohio and another, Senator Sherrod Brown wanted to talk about money, but his attention was briefly drawn by something he saw along the roadside. "Hey, it's one of those nice billboards that the Koch Brothers are paying for all over the state," he exclaimed. "That's a really nice one. " Money is the only story of the various 2012 campaigns.
Money always has been the only story of the various 2012 campaigns. At least ever since the Supreme Court decided in favor of David Bossie and Citizens United, thereby loosing unlimited, unaccountable, and largely anonymous corporate money into the system. For a while, it got treated as the only story, particularly during the Republican primaries, when a series of lunatic "contenders" were blown off the stage seriatim as soon as Willard Romney got around to aiming his financial fire hose between their eyes. FROM THE MAGAZINE: An Analysis of the Fate of the Senate (with Predictions) Our View: Start the battle against Citizens United today. October 25, 2012 12:00 AM No SouthCoast cities or towns will see Question 4 on the Nov. 6 ballot, but it doesn't prevent area residents from raising their voices along with those who will see it, to send a loud message to lawmakers about taking on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.
The 2010 high court decision, which held that corporations can spend unlimited, untraceable funds to affect the outcomes of elections, reaffirmed earlier rulings that indicated that corporations are, in the eyes of the law, people, and therefore have the same rights. The net effect of this has been an accelerated undermining of American democracy, transforming our already-fractious campaign finance system into a de facto plutocracy. It would be nice to think that these corporations are selfless and that they truly have the best interest of all Americans at heart, but that seems more than just a little naive.
That map to the money has been erased by the Citizens United ruling.