McCutcheon – RI Future

April 3, 2014April 4, 2014

Spending money is not free speech, we need to take it to the streets

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

In the recent Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v. FEC, the right wing Bush appointed Supreme Court Justices tipped the scales and ruled essentially that spending money is free speech. When Abel Collins interviewed famed linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky, Noam asked rhetorically asked why not just admit that we have given up on democracy and admit that we are a plutocracy- accepting rule by the wealthy class, the 1%.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas- who may go down as the worst justice in the history, went further writing that “all limits on campaigns contributions are unconstitutional.”

This makes the Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz article the 2011 Vanity Fair magazine article entitled “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%“, quite prescient:

“Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.”

So what’s the solution? Abel Collins offers this:

“We have the numbers. Let us freely assemble, muster our forces, and occupy politics from the bottom up. Put your name in the hat for city or town council. Start a blog, plan street theater, get arrested and be heard. By all means, we should start by reversing the effects of Citizens United. Municipal and statewide resolutions calling on Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to say that corporations aren’t people and political campaign spending isn’t protected speech can get the ball rolling. Amending State Constitutions via voter initiative or legislative referendum to this same effect as I have proposed in Rhode Island is another step. Whatever else, let us not cede the political sphere to the corporations, whether they are people in the eyes of the Supreme Court or not.”

At least it is one strategy, but considering the ethics of our state legislature it seems rather unlikely. Getting mass numbers assembled and engaged seems a more likely strategy to succeed. But can we do it? That is up to you.

(This video is from 10-8-13 #2 Abel & Noam Interview Part 2 Money as Free Speech Produced by Robert Malin c.2014)

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.

April 2, 2014April 2, 2014

Two views on SCOTUS campaign finance ruling

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

“If the court in Citizens United opened a door,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, “today’s decision may well open a floodgate.” But his was the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that strips back prohibitions on how much money people can give to candidates.

The New York Times called it “a sequel of sorts” to the highly controversial Citizens United ruling.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a staunch advocate for campaign finance reform in the other direction, said in an email, “This is a step in the wrong direction for democracy. With these limits now gone, wealthy donors will be able to give millions of dollars directly to candidates and political parties. Money is getting more and more of a voice in Washington, while the voices of hardworking American voters matter less and less in our elections.”

But Sam Bell, who is running for Gordon Fox’s seat in the House, said there’s at least some evidence that our democracy can survive without limits on campaign donations from individuals. Here’s what he wrote in an email:

Campaign finance laws will be completely gone soon enough. But I’d like to offer some words of comfort: Things are pretty bad right now. Big money already controls our politics. Sure, it’s going to get worse. But honestly, this is a battle we’ve already lost. Before you get too discouraged, I encourage everyone to take a look at Oregon and Virginia.

Oregon is a moderately blue state, one that Obama won by twelve points. Virginia, he won by 3 points. Democrats control the Oregon state legislature and governorship. In fact, Oregon was one of the first state legislatures to elect a progressive as Speaker (current US Senator Jeff Merkley). Democrats have the governorship and a razor-thin majority in the Virginia Senate, although the House is solid red. Compared to other swing states, that’s actually not so bad, especially considering Virginia only holds its elections in odd-numbered years, where Democrats are at an even worse turnout disadvantage. Those states aren’t such horror stories. And yet both of them have no campaign finance restrictions whatsoever. Corporations can actually give money directly to candidates. So even when things get much, much worse, all hope is not lost.

In total, 12 states have no limits on the amount of money individuals can give to candidates. They are: Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Virginia. See how all the state handle it here.