Citizens United – RI Future

September 6, 2016

Senator Whitehouse is fighting ‘dark money’ in Washington

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Saying that fighting dark money in politics is his “patriotic duty,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse sat next to Congressmembers David Cicilline and James Langevin in a “roundtable discussion” to highlight his work on the DISCLOSE Act, introduced by the Senator in June, which would “require disclosure of donations greater than $10,000 to organizations spending at least $10,000 in an election.”

“The American people want and deserve accountability in their elections,” said Whitehouse, “Unchecked secret corporate spending has tipped the scales of power away from ordinary Americans and in favor of big special interests. If Congress is going to make meaningful progress in the months and years ahead on important issues that matter to Rhode Islanders like addressing climate change, reforming our broken campaign finance system is the first step.”

Whitehouse’s DISCLOSE Act, which has been supported by Langevin and Cicilline in the U.S. House of Representatives, is part of the “We the People” legislative package to deal with secret corporate political spending, lobbyist influence, the revolving door, and other facets of the campaign finance system. Whitehouse touted the suite of legislation as a solution to the corporate spending blocking meaningful legislative action on issues like ensuring economic security for the middle class and addressing climate change.

It seems that Whitehouse mentioned climate change and chose Save the Bay’s headquarters in Providence as the location of his round table discussion because, as the Senator said in response to Meghan Kallman, chair of the RI Sierra Club, “I think it’s pretty safe to say, that at a national level, the climate battle is the campaign finance battle. They’re totally married together into one thing.”

Notably, there were protesters outside Save the Bay holding signs reminding their elected representatives about both Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant and National Grid’s proposed LNG liquefaction facility for Fields Point in the Port of Providence, a stone’s throw away. They were there to remind elected officials that their jobs in Washington do not absolve them from taking positions on local issues. None of the elected leaders in the room, aside from State Senator Juan Pichardo, who has publicly taken a stand against the LNG plant in Providence, have thrown their considerable political weight behind the opposition to these projects.

“This is a national package, [but] many many many issues are local,” said Kallman, “We’re watching Dakota. We’re watching Burrillville. We’re watching Fields Point… We have something of a disconnect between what’s happening on the national level and where the front line battles are being fought.”

The influence of corporate spending on elections since the 2010 Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court is a major concern to all who attended the event. Citizens United unleashed a previously restricted torrent of special interest money into the political system. More than $1.5 billion in unlimited contributions, including more than $500 million in secret contributions, have been poured into federal elections since the decision was issued.

“It didn’t take long after Citizens United for secret money has find its way to the shores of Rhode Island,” said John Marion, Executive Director of Common Cause Rhode Island. “We know that Rhode Islanders don’t want unlimited undisclosed money in our elections. We are fortunate to have a congressional delegation that has taken this issue seriously and has offered real solutions for the problems posed by big money in our politics.”

“Senator Whitehouse is a national leader fighting to make our elections and government work for everyday people again through the We the People Act,” said Aquene Freechild, campaign co-director of Public Citizen‘s Democracy Is For People Campaign. “He’s pushing the current congressional majority to snap out of their campaign cash-induced paralysis and stand up to the tiny but influential donor class: by overturning Citizens United, disclosing all spending in elections, and slamming shut the revolving door that transforms public servants into corporate shills.”

Also in attendance at the roundtable discussion were RI Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, RI State Representative Art Handy, state director of Clean Water Action Jonathan Berard, Save the Bay’s Topher Hamblett and Dean Michael J. Yelnosky of the Roger Williams University School of Law. You can watch the rest of the video from the event below.

April 3, 2014April 3, 2014

SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling further erodes US democracy

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Not since Roe v. Wade has a U.S. Supreme Court decision permeated the public consciousness quite like the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case. In 2010, the nation’s highest court opened the campaign finance floodgates when – in a 5-4 decision – they sided with lawyers for the anti- Hillary Clinton political action committee (PAC) Citizens United who argued that PACs not be required to disclose their donors identities or the amounts of money they had contributed.

Bold and continuing campaign finance reform in our nations capitol began in Washington, D.C., in 1971 and continued until 2002. The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act required the disclosure of donors’ identities and the amounts they contributed to federal election campaigns.

A little known Supreme Court decision that, at its heart, concluded that the spending of money equals free speech was handed down in 1976. A Supreme Court majority held that a key provision of the Campaign Finance Act, which limited expenditure on election campaigns was “unconstitutional”, and contrary to the First Amendment.

The leading opinion viewed spending money as a form of political “speech” which could not be restricted due to the First Amendment. The only interest was in preventing “corruption or its appearance”, and only personal contributions should be targeted because of the danger of “quid pro quo” exchanges.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – better known as the McCain-Feingold Act after the bill’s primary sponsors, Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold – strengthened restrictions, but did nothing to challenge or reverse the Supreme Court’s previous rulings.

Essentially, the Citizens United case boiled down to this.

According to the U.S. Constitution, corporations are afforded the same rights as people, and therefore should be given the same protections as individuals when it comes to political donations. This decision, by correlation, asserted that the spending of money equates to the exercise of our First Amendment rights to free speech. While the Supreme Court’s decision may be true to the letter of U.S. law, it raised a widespread concern amongst Americans as to whether corporations should, in fact and practice, be afforded the same rights as people, and whether the spending of money constituted free speech.

[vsw id=”xQqzhjstb7E” source=”youtube” width=”550″ height=”400″ autoplay=”no”]

Just this week, the Supreme Court dealt another blow to campaign finance reform advocates in the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. In essence, the decision did not affect federal campaign finance laws, save for one small factor. Prior to the decision, individuals and PACs were forced to abide by a hard-and-fast limit on aggregated donations to political candidates or PACs in support or opposition to particular legislation or candidates.

Let’s look at it this way.

Prior to the McCutcheon decision, there was a limit as to what I could donate to any and all political campaigns within an election cycle. That cap was $123,200. I could spend that total in any way I saw fit, as long as I abided by current FEC guidelines of $2,600 per federal candidate in each primary and general election or $32,400 per PAC in each cycle.

While the Supreme Court’s decision did not eliminate the $2,600 or $32,400 guidelines, it did declare the cap of $123,200 unconstitutional. This means I can donate $2,600 to any candidate in any state, and $32,400 to any PAC in any state, without restrictions, up to infinity dollars.

If I had the money to do this, I would, but therein lies the rub.

I don’t.

You don’t.

98 percent of the people in the U.S. don’t.

The McCutcheon decision has basically told big time donors that they can start buying candidates and PACs throughout the country, and in turn buy legislative influence.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has rightly ruled in both of these cases. As they stand, the only way to rescind these decisions is to amend the U.S. Constitution to say plainly that corporations are not people, and spending money is not free speech. This is where the nationwide movement to amend the U.S. Constitution comes into play.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is no small task. 38 of the 50 states must ratify an amendment. Our first step in Rhode Island is to amend our own constitution. As it stands, the Rhode Island chapter of the Move(ment) to Amend has bills before both the R.I. Senate and House. On their face, these bills do nothing, but when combined with bills in other states, we send a loud and clear message to the U.S. Supreme Court, and our legislators in Washington.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

SPENDING MONEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FREE SPEECH.

Please, for the sake of our country, and our children and grandchildren, sign the petition to amend our Constitution today.

January 21, 2014

On Citizens United anniversary, candidates should come to the table

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Four years ago today the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in the case Citizens United v. FEC. In the four years that have followed we’ve seen an explosion in outside money in our elections at both the local, state, and national levels. That money is used to fund advertisements that are overwhelmingly negative and increasingly mysterious in their origins.

There are two ways actual citizens can unite in reaction. One is to amend the Constitution to ensure that money does not equal speech and corporations are not people. Another, much easier way, is to pressure candidates into signing a People’s Pledge. We’re on the cusp of that in the Democratic primary for Governor here in Rhode Island.

Back on October 23^rd Mayor Angel Taveras signed a version of the People’s Pledge that would restrict outside spending by committing candidates to give to charity 50% of the value of any outside spending that occurs on their behalf. This morning Treasurer Gina Raimondo tweeted her support for the idea.

We’re 2/3rds the way there folks. Now two things need to happen for us to make it all the way. First, we need to have Clay Pell join in the commitment. Second, the candidates need to sit around the table and come to agreement. Today we’re offering this lovely conference table here at the Common Cause Rhode Island office for them to use.

Do your part by reaching out to the candidates and encouraging them to come to the table.

October 24, 2013October 24, 2013

People’s Pledge: Let’s give it a try

In 1996 incumbent John Kerry and Governor William Weld were headed toward an epic showdown for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. Closely matched as candidates, they knew spending in their upcoming race could break records. In a novel twist the candidates themselves sat down and negotiated an agreement to limit the total amount that could be spent by the campaigns (including from their personal fortunes), their respective parties, and outside groups. They also agreed to a series of televised debates throughout the state. Although the spending caps broke down in the final days, the race was a watershed moment for campaign finance.

Fast-forward to 2012 and incumbent Senator Scott Brown reached out to challenger Elizabeth Warren (read the actual correspondence) and challenged her to enter a People’s Pledge. Modeled after the Weld-Kerry agreement it included limits on outside spending (it’s notable that no one is talking about limiting total expenditures any more—Citizens United changed the political landscape and dialogue). After significant back and forth, both candidates signed on and even sent notice to third party groups and TV stations that might run their ads, warning them to stay out of the race.

Common Cause Massachusetts reported that the 2012 People’s Pledge did a great job at minimizing outside money in the Brown-Warren race when compared to similar races that year. We know that outside spending is overwhelmingly negative, can come from undisclosed sources, and can be raised in unlimited amounts. In 2013 when the Gomez-Markey race did not have a pledge outside spending from right and left came flooding back in.

So here we are in neighboring Rhode Island looking at the prospect of a very expensive Democratic primary, followed by a very short, but quite-possibly expensive, general election for governor in 2014. Typically races for governor aren’t fought on the national issues that draws outside groups into Senate races but that may be different this time.

Common Cause Rhode Island would like to see all candidates for governor negotiate a People’s Pledge. We mentioned the idea over a month ago when the first self-described Super PAC emerged. Sam Howard wrote about the idea at length on RI Future soon after. Quite frankly, we were waiting for the candidates to actually declare before we began to push for an agreement.

So now the cat is out of the bag. As a non-partisan group that does not engage in electioneering it would be easy to just let the topic die. We do not want to be seen as favoring any candidate over another. But this is too important a topic. Rhode Island deserves a campaign in 2014 that will focus on issues, not attacks. We deserve to know where the money that is backing the candidates is coming from. For those reasons we are asking the would-be candidates to meet and discuss this idea.

This won’t be easy. Massachusetts has demonstrated that these agreements might take some time to work out, but that they can work. Each candidate has strengths and weaknesses when it comes to campaign finance and the negotiations should address those. As the Supreme Court dismantles limits on money in politics (and next it might be limits on contributions directly to candidates) we need to look to alternatives. The People’s Pledge may be our best hope. Let’s give it a try.

October 11, 2013October 11, 2013

Real Koch bros worse than Trading Places’ Duke bros

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Someday we may learn that the government shutdown was all just a one dollar bet between brothers Charles and David Koch to see if they could pull it off, just as fictional billionaire bad guy brothers Randolph and Mortimer Duke did in Trading Places, the 1983 Eddie Murphy, Dan Akroyd classic about Wall Street shenanigans.

Please pardon Randoph’s atrocious language, but the reality is the real-life billionaire bad guy brothers are even more evil than the fictional ones. (Imagine what Billie Ray Valentine could overhear the Koch’s saying in the executive can together?)

At least fictional billionaire bad guy brothers Randolph and Mortimer only manipulated two people’s lives; the real-life billionaire bad guy brothers Charles and David are manipulating our entire government.

Trading Places has long been lauded as the best ever movie about Wall Street, according to Business Insider. And NPR breaks down the stock scam in the movie here. But I’ve always felt the movie’s true genius is how it takes on nature versus nurture, and the effect money can have on one’s success and character. (Ed. note: success and character are NOT the same things, and especially not in the 21st Century political arena, thanks in large part to Citizens United and the Duke, er, I mean Koch brothers…)

If there’s a lesson to be learned from Citizens United and how the Koch brothers use of the Citizens United decision it may be that money can alter political outcomes just like it can if you gave it a homeless bum and made him a commodities trader.

May 21, 2013

Rhode Islanders move to end Citizens United

MTAprotestSign Rhode Island Move to Amend held a meeting Monday night at the Warwick Public Library to discuss ways in which to reverse the Supreme Court’s controversial and unpopular Citizens United decision. House Bill 6051, introduced by Representative Art Handy, seeks to challenge the Supreme Court ruling by asserting that Corporations are not persons and that money is not speech. Passing such a law, in direct contravention to the Supreme Court could have several effects. The Supreme Court may strike down the law upon consideration or it may use the law to reconsider it’s previous decision. Supporters say that both outcomes will lead to fresh discussions on the corrupting influence of money on our political system.

Over the course of the next several months Rhode Island Move to Amend will be working to engage the public and our legislators over this very important issue. You can help by joining Rhode Island Move to Amend.

Major rhetorical territory was staked out at the House Judiciary Committee meeting held on May 9, to discuss the bill. Abel Collins, who heads up the Move to Amend Coalition, stated it plainly when he said, “Now is the time to stop [corporations]… which are really just legal fictions, from having the same rights as persons.”

Chris Curry, of RI MoveOn.org, spoke forcefully of the dystopian impact of Citizens United.

Of all the issues we address, nothing even comes close to matching Citizens United’s ability to inspire rage and indignation in just about everyone I talk to. Not because it’s so fundamentally dishonest that corporations are people or that money equals speech, it’s because they consider the five justices of the Supreme Court who made that ruling to have violated their oath of office by unconstitutionally establishing a framework for a takeover of our country by multinational corporations.

A spokesperson for the RI Sierra Club said, “Rhode Island should get in front of this issue our state was founded by thinkers who were not afraid to be contrarians to the dominant paradigms of the time. We should make a stand and say that our country is for the people and by the people and not for sale to the highest bidder.”

In counterpoint, the RI ACLU opposes any legislation that might open the door to restricting political speech, or limiting a person’s right to use money to advance their speech.

“I’ve heard this a lot, that ‘money is not speech,'” said RI ACLU Director Steve Brown, “That’s a very catchy slogan, but it really simplifies a much more complicated issue. Money is not necessarily speech but it certainly facilitates a lot of speech and it is necessary to facilitate a lot of speech…

If you want to prepare a flyer, and get fifty copies made at Kinko’s to express your opposition to this constitutional amendment it costs money. To just say that money is not speech and therefore can be regulated is to say that the General assembly could say, “You cannot spend money if it’s to be used to prepare a flyer on a political issue.”

We think that the State Constitution would be diminished and demeaned by adding a provision like this into a very important document meant to protect all of our rights.

Amplifying Steve Brown’s points and adopting the ACLU’s position as his own was a spokesperson for the RI Tea Party, who said, perversely, “Citizens United struck a tremendous blow for the First Amendment,” and added,

Money is not the problem. Corporations are not evil entities in and of themselves. Corporations are nothing more than collections of individuals and people who are responsible for their own decisions.

Stepping on the First Amendment is a slippery slope that we cannot walk onto. That is the reason why, for philosophical reasons, that we have to oppose this.

John Marion of Common Cause RI struck a mostly neutral tone. The national organization has not yet reached a consensus on the kind of language it would like to see in a bill designed to take on Citizen’s United, and though he appreciated Art Handy and Move to Amend’s efforts, he urged caution.

We appreciate the efforts of Move to Amend and the other groups that have come out with specific language, but as Mr. Brown said, this is very weighty a matter. We disagree with the ACLU’s belief that you shouldn’t tinker because this problem is one created by an interpretation of the Constitution, so it can only be solved by a change to our Constitution.

People talk about Citizens United, Citizens United, Citizens United, but really this is about a case in 1876, Buckley v. Valeo which is the case that basically decided that money is the functional equivalent of speech and therefore since we can’t limit the speech, we can’t limit the money. So I think its really important that we go back and look at that decision and the context of that decision.

Perhaps the most pragmatic and compelling statement came from Jerry Belair, speaking for the RI Progressive Democrats, not because of his politics, but because of his career as a corporate attorney.

I’m a corporate attorney. I can tell you clearly that a corporation is not a person. We establish a corporation for the purposes of making business easy for us. It’s a very successful way of doing business. It’s also a means of limiting our liability… That the purpose for these entities. And to even suggest that somehow a corporation has attained personhood under either the Federal Constitution or a state constitution is insidious. It’s the most insidious attack on our democracy that I’ve seen in my lifetime.

It is clear that money in politics, money as speech and corporate personhood are large issues that demand lots of thought and definitive action. The ACLU would support a slate of legislation to address these issues, even as it continues to support Citizens United:

…the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

Perhaps these concerns can be addressed in the way that the ACLU would like, but even the ACLU sees the prospects of real reform as being rather dim. In the very next paragraph the group opines that,

Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.

I would suggest that the cynicism is all the ACLU’s. Under their formulation, money is not just speech, money is power, and it will always find a way to corrupt our political system. Anything we do to change this system, the ACLU seems to say, can only potentially make things worse. Such an outlook is the epitome of cynicism.

RI Move to Amend is hopeful in that particular way Rhode Island embodies Hope, and emblazons this word on our state flag. Our state was born out of Hope and has stood up to an enormously powerful enemy with near infinite money and power before. On the issue of corporate personhood Rhode Island can show the way just as we did 241 years ago when the HMS Gaspee burned.

The fight against corporate personhood is the ultimate civil rights battle. With this legislation Rhode Island can once again strike the first blow for freedom and ignite a revolution that can bring an end to the specter of corporate oligarchy.

May 16, 2013

What is a 501c(4), how do they affect local politics?

Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is helping to raise a long overdue conversation in American politics, and it’s closely related to the IRS scandal. The role 501c(4) groups play in politics.

Read his speech here, or watch it below (John McDaid of Hard Deadlines has a great piece on it here):

501c(4) a not-for-profit designation that is supposed to be used for educating people about “social welfare” but what they do as a practical matter is advocate for a political agenda.

The Washington Post has a good explainer video here, most important to know that you don’t get a tax break for donating to these groups, Instead, donors get something perhaps far more valuable: anonymity.

It’s why it took a Wall Street Journal reporter to uncover that some of the money behind pension politics came from an Enron hedge fund manager and why we still don’t know who paid for the rest of it.

It’s why the Providence Joural always referred to anything Ocean State Action touched as being “labor-backed.”

It’s why we have little idea who is paying Mike Stenhouse and Justin Katz to be the public faces behind a far-fetched proposal to eliminate the state sales tax. (Well, we know a little bit, thanks to the diligent research of Mike McDonald.) By the way, when Katz testified for this bill yesterday he did so for the 501c(3) wing of his anti-government group, not the 501c(4).

May 9, 2013May 9, 2013

End the era of Citizens United in Rhode Island

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Tonight, I will deliver this testimony to the House Judiciary Committee:

. . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010

Everyone makes mistakes, even Supreme Court Justices. Sometimes five of them make the same mistake at once and produce a horrible decision that threatens to unravel the democratic fabric of our civil society. Such was the Court’s decision in Citizens United vs. FEC. Our President, Senator Whitehouse, the City of Providence among other RI municipalities, and this very legislative body have all recognized this and pushed for the reversal of the decision. H6051 and the “We The People” constitutional referendum it enables gives the Rhode Island people that same opportunity with a direct vote.

There are two ways a Supreme Court decision can be reversed. The simplest and most common is for the Court itself to review and overturn its decision when it takes up a related case. The other is to amend the US Constitution, either through Congressional action or an Article V convention called for by at least ⅔ of the States. In the history of our great country, there has never been an Article V convention. For all intents and purposes, we must hope that the corporate sponsored hyper-partisan politicians in Washington take action to amend the Constitution and put an end to the money in politics that put them there, or that the Court will take up a case and do what’s right.

Given the dangerous implications of unlimited corporate spending in elections, any action that can be taken to facilitate the reversal of Citizens United should be taken immediately. The “We The People” amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution, if approved, would do this in a few ways. If the amendment gets challenged and heard by the Supreme Court, it would give the Court the chance to overturn Citizens United. However, if the Court affirms its previous decisions and overrules a popular democratic vote, then a fire will be ignited under the Congressional amendment process and probably the Article V process as well, making those avenues more likely to move forward. Finally, the RI “We The People” amendment might not be challenged, and Rhode Island could serve as a model whereby other states could reclaim their right to regulate special interest spending in elections.

In addition to these critically important policy implications, H6051 will give Rhode Island voters a cathartic opportunity. For long years, we have watched our democracy slip away from us, powerless to do anything about the growing influence on money in politics. Faith in government is plumbing the depths. The people know what is right on this issue. They know that a corporation is not a person and that its spending in elections is not free speech. We, The People, deserve to be heard. This is our democracy.

For these good reasons, I urge you to pass H6051 and put the question to the people. Give us the chance to send a message to the Supreme Court and all our leaders in Washington, D.C. These are extraordinary times when corporate power threatens to overwhelm the power of the public, and these times demand extraordinary action. This bill is that action.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Abel Collins

May 7, 2013May 7, 2013

Amend RI Constitution: Corporations aren’t people

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In 2012, the General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution calling on leaders in Washington to reverse the effects of the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision, which enshrined corporations as people and their spending of money in elections as protected free speech. Rhode Island is one of twelve states to take such action alongside at least another dozen who are contemplating similar non-binding legislative action. Meanwhile, hundreds of municipalities around the country have passed resolutions likewise calling for the reversal of Citizens United, including Providence and other RI municipalities. Rhode Island also enjoys leadership on this important issue at the federal level from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has spearheaded the initiative to amend the U.S. Constitution. We should be proud of the leadership that has been shown by our political leaders on this issue.

However if you’re like me, you don’t want to hold your breath waiting for things to happen in Washington, D.C. That’s why I got together with some friends and started a Rhode Island affiliate of the Move To Amend coalition. That’s also why we drafted legislation that would allow Rhode Island to be the first state to amend its constitution to abolish corporate personhood. If passed, the bill would put the question on next year’s ballot for the voters to decide. We can be proud that we are the first state in the nation to be considering this move.

The good news is that we have started a petition to support amending the RI Constitution, and in the less than three days it has been up, it already has more than 300 signatures. You can sign it here: http://movetoamend.nationbuilder.com/amend_ri

The less good but still exciting news is that the bill is being heard this Thursday, May 9th in the House Judiciary committee, so there is only a short time to get people on this petition and to the Statehouse for the hearing. I’d be grateful if you can share the petition through social media and email with all your friends. Please also consider coming to the hearing. I’ve made a Facebook event page that allows you to RSVP and spread the word to your friends.

This hearing on Thursday and the subsequent fate of this legislation could prove to be historic steps in the fight to reclaim our democracy from the grip of corporate power. If the bill passes and Rhode Islanders determine that a corporation is not a person as polling suggests they would, there are a lot of potential outcomes and all good for the broader goal of amending the U.S. Constitution.

May 14, 2012May 14, 2012

RI Progress Report: Education Disparity, Homeless Bill of Rights, Brendan Doherty, Citizens United, the Ocean Mist

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

What you’ll notice when you look at GoLocal’s annual list of best high schools is the ones at the top of the list are in affluent towns and the ones near the bottom are in poorer urban areas. It’s that simple: we have a tiered education system in this state. Rich kids, and those lucky enough to live in upscale suburbs, get great educations and poor kids don’t.

An in-depth look at Rhode Island’s Homeless Bill of Rights, and why we would want to become the first state in the nation to adopt such a proposal.

The US Chamber of Commerce’s TV ad for Brendan Doherty signals that Citizens United is now having an effect on local elections in Rhode Island … not sure how the unions feel about this, but I know I don’t want the US Chamber to have an outsized role in selecting our senators and congressmen.

Scott MacKay says URI professors have a strong case if they go to the state labor relations board that the state engaged in bad faith negotiations … the two sides pretty much had a deal until the governor stepped in.

We predicted it would be there and then Sunday morning it was … the New York Times put together a great story on the plan to stop beach erosion in Matunuck, and how it could affect the legendary RI beach bar the Ocean Mist. For a local perspective, read Matunuck resident Tracey O’Neill’s story that scooped the Times on Saturday. And, really, this picture I took on Friday night of the surf creeping up close to the back deck tells the whole story. Full disclosure: I do not want to live in Rhode Island without an Ocean Mist.

My piece on Rhode Island being the Democrat in name only state really seems to have riled up the right. Justin Katz countered it with a post based on a study that claims the legislature is actually one of the most liberal in the country and on Saturday Travis Rowley gave it his normal fire and brimstone treatment. Rowley is entitled to his opinion. Katz’s piece, on the other hand, is simply intellectually dishonest – no one really thinks our state legislature is particularly liberal except those trying to manipulate facts for their own benefit.

Watch this video to see why venture capital firms like Bain Capital are bad for the economy.

A new masterplan for the heart of Providence … read this if you’ve always loved the idea of living and working downtown.

March 21, 2012March 21, 2012

Whitehouse Intros Super PAC DISCLOSE Bill

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

RI Future first reported this story Monday morning, but we thought you might want to know that it has now actually happened. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse introduced the DISCLOSE Act, which would require Super PACs and other anonymous political donors to stand by their TV ads by requiring that they put their names on them.

“The American people deserve to know who is really behind these ads,” said Whitehouse, according to a press release from his office. “This legislation will require organizations involved in elections to tell the public where they are getting their money, and what they are spending it on – shining a badly needed light into the activities of these groups.”

Here are more quotes from some of Whitehouse’s 34 co-sponsoring senators:

“In the age of super PACs, it is more important than ever for citizens to understand who is financing political campaigns and negative attack ads. Voters must be able to make informed decisions, and this legislation provides rules that will prevent this unregulated influx of money from compromising the transparency of our electoral process.”
– Senator Jeanne Shaheen, D-New Hampshire

“Republicans and Democrats have both touted disclosure in the past and the ideas in this bill have earned broad support. There’s a lot we need to fix with campaign finance, but at a minimum, the American people at least deserve to know where the deluge of money financing these new shadow campaign operations is coming from.”
– Senator Tom Udall, D-New Mexico

“Citizens United unleashed a wave of corporate campaign cash that threatens to drown out the voice of the people. This is a serious threat to our democracy and we cannot stand by while it happens.”
– Senator Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon

“We believe that all of the unlimited cash allowed by the Citizens United decision must at least be disclosed.” “This legislation seeks to limit the damage of the Supreme Court decision that has given corporations and the very wealthy unprecedented sway over our elections, and represents one of the most serious threats to the future of our democracy.”
– Senator Charles E. Schumer, D-New York

March 19, 2012March 19, 2012

Whitehouse Bill Would Regulate Super PAC Ads

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

whitehouse superpac eg — Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse at a community supper in East Greenwich.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is planning on introducing new legislation later this week that would require Super PACs, corporations and other big donors to divulge their associations with political advertisements.

“In the same way at the end of my ads I have to say, ‘I’m Sheldon Whitehouse and I approve this message,'” said the most progressive member of Rhode Island’s congressional delegation, “they would have to have an actual disclaimer in the ads that says we’re Exxon Mobile and we approve this message or I’m a billionaire from Macau and I approve this message so that is clear from the actual advertisement itself who the sponsor is.”

The legislation, Whitehouse said, would apply to “anyone who spends more than $10,000 on electioneering activities, 80 to 90 percent of which is advertising.” It would also apply to phone banks, which make robo-calls and other get out the vote efforts.

He said it is one of the ways a new coalition of Democrats is working reverse the damage the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed corporations and Super PACS to spend unlimited amounts of money on political messaging, has had on public discourse. As an example, he cited the $14 million Mitt Romney supporters spent before the Florida primary on ads attacking Newt Gingrich.

“If you are as far left as occupy movement or as far right as the tea party you’ve got something in common,” Whitehouse told the audience at a community supper Sunday night in East Greenwich. “You do not want to American system of government of, by and for the people, taken over by big corporations that can spend other peoples money … their stockholder’s money, in unaccountable and anonymous ways.”

Watch this short video to learn some of the insidious ways in which Whitehouse says corporate lobbyists can use the Citizens United decision to manipulate the political system.

Likening Citizens United to Plessy vs. Ferguson, the Supreme court decision that temporarily codified separate but equal, he added, “”To my mind it’s one of the worst decisions out of the supreme court. Corporations are not people. They are a way of organizing human behavior that is very efficient when you want to make money … but when it comes to politics there is a huge risk of coprs drowning out the voices of regular people.”

He said he and seven other senators have been working on the bill, which he expects will be introduced this week. He said it has the blessing of Majority Leader Harry Reid and he hopes it will get some floor time this session.

“The goal to get every Democrat on board and show some real momentum and hope we can draw some Republicans over like John McCain, who has a long and proud history of fighting for disclosure,” Whitehouse said.

He said he the coalition also drafted a brief to the Supreme Court about a recent Montanta Supreme Court decision that could reverse the Citizens United decision.

“So the Supreme Court may have an opportunity to rethink that decision,” he said. Noting that Citizens United was a five to four decision, he added, “All it would take is one of them.”

March 13, 2012March 13, 2012

RI Progress Report: How To Avoid School Suspensions

It turns out the easiest way to avoid discipline at local high schools is to be white. Non-white students at urban Rhode Island high schools are more likely to get in trouble than their white counterparts, reports RINPR’s Elizabeth Harrison, even as they make up a much smaller percentage of the student body.

In Cranston, for example, black students racked up more than half of the school expulsions while accounting for just 4 percent of the school’s population. And in Pawtucket, Hispanic students accounted for 2/3 of the in-school suspensions even though they make up just a quarter of the student body.

— Speaking of Cranston, the school custodians there recently agreed to a 15 percent pay cut. The move will save about $660,000 a year. Meanwhile, the school committee there spent about a quarter as much just to defend the prayer banner, a battle they had to know they would eventually lose.

— How has Citizens United changed presidential politics? Already in the 2012 campaign outside groups have spent twice as much as they did in the 2008 presidential campaign.

— File this one under solutions to things that aren’t problems: A bill sponsored by Rep. Karen MacBeth, D-Cumberland, would mandate that any driver involved in an accident that causes serious injury to submit to a drug and alcohol test. Even if the police didn’t suspect they were drinking or using drugs.

— Homeless people being used as wifi hotspots at SXSW? That’s worse than we treat the homeless people here in Rhode Island. By the way, one of our contributors, Reza Clifton, will be blogging from the Austin, TX music and think tank expo all week long. Read her dispatches here.

— Classic Rhode Island logic: we hated the idea of having a casino when the Narragansett Indian Tribe thought of it. But as soon as Massachusetts puts a casino plan into action we move ahead with a similar one, but leave the Narragansetts out of the equation. Now the Tribe is suing the state. At least Don Carcieri won’t be sending any state troopers down to Charlestown to settle the dispute…

January 22, 2012January 22, 2012

Eleven Shocking Facts About Campaign Finance (or Why We Need Publicly Funded Elections)

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Over at The Nation, they have a list of Eleven Shocking Facts About Campaign Finance (and they’re not pretty):

The amount of independent expenditure and electioneering communication spending by outside groups has quadrupled since 2006. [Center for Responsive Politics]

The percentage of spending coming from groups that do not disclose their donors has risen from 1 percent to 47 percent since the 2006 mid-term elections. [Center for Responsive Politics]

Campaign receipts for members of the House of Representatives totaled $1.9 billion in 2010—up from $781 million in 1998. [Committee for Economic Development]

Outside groups spent more on political advertising in 2010 than party committees—for the first time in at least two decades. [Center for Responsive Politics]

A shocking 72 percent of political advertising by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006. [Committee for Economic Development]

In 2004, 97.9 percent of outside groups disclosed their donors. In 2010, 34.0 percent did. [Committee for Economic Development]

In 2010, the US Chamber of Commerce spent $31,207,114 in electioneering communications. The contributions for which it disclosed the donors: $0. [Committee for Economic Development]

Only 26,783 Americans donated more than $10,000 to federal campaigns in 2010—or, about one in 10,000 Americans. Their donations accounted for 24.3 percent of total campaign donations. [Sunlight Foundation]

Average donation from that elite group was $28,913. (The median individual income in America is $26,364) [Sunlight Foundation]

Amount the Karl Rove–led Crossroads GPS says it will spend on the 2012 elections: $240 million. []

Amount that President Obama has raised from the financial sector already for his 2012 re-election:$15.6 million [Washington Post]