Citizens United—Legalizing the Wholesale Purchase of America's Elected Officials
By Riki Ott
In January 2010, five U.S. Supreme Court justices legalized the wholesale purchase of America’s elected officials. In its landmark decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the court’s majority ruled that corporations, as persons, have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money, as speech, on campaign advertisements as long as those communications are not formally coordinated with any candidate. In Chief Justice Roberts’s court, at least, political expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
Here in the real world, when someone—or some “thing,” in the case of a corporation—has piles of money, that person or thing can purchase more “speech.” The unequal distribution of the power to speak can then lead to an out-of-balance political system in which a few actors wield disproportionate influence, a situation that undermines the ideal of one-person one-vote.
Recognizing this, 22 states had laws on the books that put limits on political donations. Sixty years of precedent in federal law also restricted corporate campaign expenditures. Roberts’s court found such restrictions unconstitutional and overturned those commonsense protections. In a single ruling, political corruption was legalized.
Then the courts decriminalized the laundering of political money. In March 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia applied Citizens United in SpeechNow.org v. FEC and ruled that an organization formed to accept contributions and make “independent” expenditures must register as a Political Action Committee, or PAC. However, unlike traditional PACs, the new “independent-expenditures” only PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals as well as corporations and unions. Even more worrisome, the new breed of PACs—or “Super PACs,” as they’ve come to be known—do not have to disclose the names of their donors. A political attack ad can now appear on television with no one knowing who paid for it.
Since those rulings, Super PACs and their affiliated nonprofit organizations have unleashed a flood of dollars into the political ecosystem. In the 2012 election season, spending through July by these mutant PACs was $181 million. If the early trends in Super PAC expenditures for the 2012 campaign continue, the presidency—as well as many other “publicly elected” representatives—will be bought by a handful of oligarchs and corporations whose identity is shielded from public scrutiny. As Rick Hasen, a University of California-Irvine expert in election law, puts it: “Super PACs are for the 1 percent.”
Despite the impression given by pundits on cable television and talk radio, politics is not a game. It’s how we collectively decide our national priorities, and it affects real people in real ways. When an elected body is considering rules about, say, how and whether mines can discharge wastewater into local streams, the outcome doesn’t just affect which political party wins and which loses. It also affects people’s lives. If a mining corporation has a bigger say in the decision than the mine’s neighbors, it violates the principle of fairness that underlies a deliberative democracy.
That scenario isn’t a hypothetical. A century ago, Montana passed its Corrupt Practices Act to limit financial contributions to political candidates, a reaction to the corrosive effects of the state’s mining barons on its electoral system. In June, the Supreme Court—voting along the same lines as the original Citizens United decision—struck down the Montana law.
The courts’ attacks on campaign finance regulations have become a catalyst for Americans to engage in a national dialogue about who rules—corporations or persons. The prospect of so-called “dark money” overwhelming our democratic process has forced citizens to confront the degree to which corporations control our politics and, by extension, our government and us. Bankrupted by the housing crisis, disgusted by the bank bailouts, and anxious about a political system that is increasingly unresponsive to their needs, many Americans have come to the conclusion that it’s time to reclaim our democracy for real, flesh-and-blood people.
The clearest expression of this new populist movement occurred last fall, when thousands of disenfranchised people occupied public spaces and began imagining how it would look to elevate human rights above corporate rights. The physical camps of the Occupy movement have since disbanded. But the resolve remains and the work continues in what Eleanor Roosevelt called the “small places, close to home.” Among the most inspiring efforts is a national grassroots campaign to amend the constitution and overturn the Citizens United decision.
Citizens have amended the constitution seven times in U.S. history to override Supreme Court decisions—including the amendments to give black men the vote, to give women the vote, to abolish poll taxes, and to expand the franchise to 18-year-olds. Amending the constitution is a Herculean task that requires a broad-based movement with a shared vision, coordinated strategy, and sustained passion and patience. But as Jamie Raskin, a Maryland state senator and a senior fellow at People for the American Way, has observed: “A constitutional amendment always seems impossible—until it becomes inevitable.”
The signs of this nascent amendment movement are encouraging. In June, the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted a resolution stating, “corporations should not receive the same legal rights as individual human beings” and calling for urgent action to reverse Citizens United. The conference president is Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, the first major city to pass an anti-Citizens United resolution, in December 2011. The Los Angeles City Council acted at the urging of the local chapter of Move to Amend, a national grassroots coalition that has chapters in 29 states and includes hundreds of public interest groups. On a separate but similar track, more than 200 towns and cities across the country have passed ordinances or resolutions declaring that corporations are not considered persons within their jurisdictions.
Grassroots pressure from Move to Amend chapters has also emboldened five states—Hawai‘i, New Mexico, Vermont, Rhode Island and California—to pass resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United. In the nation’s capital, various U.S. Senators and Representatives have introduced six separate constitutional amendments that would address the problems of Citizens United. Although all the amendments return to the state and federal governments the power to restrict campaign contributions, only one—from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont—tackles the issue of corporate personhood.
Meanwhile, the group Common Cause has launched a campaign to put “voter instruction” initiatives on the November ballot in as many states as possible. If approved, the initiatives would instruct Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment making it clear that corporations are not people and money is not speech. While voter instructions are non-binding, they carry great weight and were used to pass the Seventeenth Amendment, which allowed voters to directly elect senators to Congress.
The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the Citizens United decision. When the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business Majority polled their members, they found two-thirds of business owners saw the Citizens United as bad for small business. According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in 2010, 80 percent of Americans oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it. A 2011 survey by Hart Research Associates found that 82 percent of voters believe Congress should limit the amount of money corporations can spent on elections.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens anticipated this rejection when he wrote in his impassioned Citizens United dissent: “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. 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.”
The reaction to Citizens United isn’t just about remedying a single court decision. It’s also about creating a democracy rooted in human rights—the kind of democracy we’ve never truly had. Amending the U.S. Constitution to affirm that people, not corporations, rule is just the latest evolution of the unceasing effort to form a more perfect union.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
When Europeans first arrived in North America, Atlantic puffins were common on islands in the Gulf of Maine. But hunters killed many of the birds for food or for feathers to adorn ladies' hats. By the 1800s, the population in Maine had plummeted.
- Experts Recommend Halving Global Fishing for Crucial Prey Species ›
- US Court Upholds Ruling on Vast Marine Monument Established by ... ›
A "major" natural gas explosion killed two people and seriously injured at least seven in Baltimore, Maryland Monday morning.
- Fatal Natural Gas Explosion Rocks Durham, NC - EcoWatch ›
- Gas Explosion Rips Through Maryland Office & Shopping Complex ... ›
Nearly 900 people across the U.S. and Canada have been sickened by salmonella linked to onions distributed by Thomson International, the The New York Times reported.
- Meat Producers Issue Massive Recalls after Salmonella, Listeria ... ›
- Salmonella Outbreaks Could Worsen with Decreased Poultry ... ›
- Major Salmonella Outbreak Exacerbated by Government Shutdown ... ›
In the coming days, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to use its power to roll back yet another Obama-era environmental protection meant to curb air pollution and slow the climate crisis.
- Permian Basin Methane Emissions Found to Be More Than 2x ... ›
- Oil and Gas Operations Release 60 Percent More Methane than ... ›
- 'Extraordinarily Harmful' Trump Rule Would Gut Restrictions on ... ›
- Exxon Now Wants to Write the Rules for Regulating Methane ... ›
By Alex Kirby
The temperature of the Arctic matters to the entire world: it helps to keep the global climate fairly cool. Scientists now say that by 2035 there could be an end to Arctic sea ice.
Melt Ponds Crucial<p>"The prospect of loss of sea ice by 2035 should really be focusing all our minds on achieving a low-carbon world as soon as humanly feasible."</p><p><a href="http://www.reading.ac.uk/search/search-staff-details.aspx?id=10813" target="_blank">Dr. David Schroeder from the University of Reading</a>, UK, who co-led the implementation of the melt pond scheme in the climate model, says, "This shows just how important sea ice processes like melt ponds are in the Arctic, and why it is crucial that they are incorporated into climate models."</p><p>The extent of the areas <a href="https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/formation.html" target="_blank">sea ice</a> covers varies between summer and winter. If more solar energy is absorbed at the surface, and temperatures rise further, a cycle of warming and melting occurs during summer months.</p><p>When the ice forms, the ocean water beneath becomes saltier and denser than the surrounding ocean. Saltier water sinks and moves along the ocean bottom towards the equator, while warm water from mid-depths to the surface travels from the equator towards the poles.</p><p>Scientists refer to this process as the ocean's global "conveyor-belt." Changes to the volume of sea ice can disrupt normal ocean circulation, with consequences for global climate. </p>
- Strongest, Oldest Arctic Sea Ice Breaks Up for First Time on Record ... ›
- Arctic Sea Ice Levels Hit Record Low After Unusually Warm January ... ›
- Why California Droughts Could Increase Due to Arctic Sea Ice Loss ... ›
Russia's Health Ministry has given regulatory approval for the world's first COVID-19 vaccine after less than two months of human testing, President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday.
Putin's Daughter Among Vaccinated<p>The Russian leader also said that one of his daughters has already been inoculated and is feeling well.</p><p>"One of my daughters got vaccinated, so in this sense, she took part in the testing," Putin said.</p><p>After the first vaccine shot, his daughter experienced a slight fever, 38 degrees Celsius (100.4°F). Her temperature came down to just slightly above normal the next day. </p><p>"After the second shot, she had a slight fever again, and then everything was fine. She is feeling well and has a high antibody count," Putin said. </p><p>He didn't specify which of his two daughters, Maria or Katerina, received the vaccine.</p><p>Russian health authorities have said that medical workers, teachers and other risk groups will be the first to receive shots of the vaccine.</p>
Years of Work Reduced to Weeks<p>Russia is the first country to register a COVID-19 vaccine. As <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-available-in-mid-2021/a-54362065" target="_blank">countries worldwide race to produce the first vaccine</a>, health experts warn that speed and national pride could compromise safety.</p><p>Scientists in Russia and abroad have questioned Moscow's decision to register the vaccine before Phase 3 trials that normally last for months and involve thousands of people, but Putin emphasized that the vaccine underwent the necessary trials and that vaccination will be voluntary.</p><p>Russian officials have said that large-scale production of the vaccine will begin in September, and mass vaccination may start as early as October.</p><p>Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, meanwhile, has <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/philippines-duterte-volunteers-to-be-putins-russian-coronavirus-vaccine-guinea-pig/a-54523030" target="_blank">lauded Russia's efforts in developing the vaccine</a> and said that the Philippines is ready to work with Moscow on vaccine trials, supply and production. Duterte volunteered to "be the first they can experiment on."</p><p>"I will tell President Putin that I have huge trust in your studies in combating COVID and I believe that the vaccine that you have produced is really good for humanity," Duterte said, adding that he thinks Russia's vaccine will be ready for the Philippines by December.</p>
- Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine Enters Phase 2 and 3 Clinical Trials ... ›
- Trump Administration Buys up Nearly All the World's Supply of ... ›
- First Trial of Moderna's Coronavirus Vaccine Produces Immune ... ›
A powerful series of thunderstorms roared across the Midwest on Monday, downing trees, damaging structures and knocking out power to more than a million people.