Public Interest Groups and Independent Business Advocates Condemn Supreme Court's Ruling On Corporate Money In Elections

Public Interest Groups and Independent Business Advocates Condemn Supreme Court's Ruling On Corporate Money In Elections

Jan 21 2010

Call for Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Court Decision

"Free Speech Rights Are For People, Not Corporations"


WASHINGTON, DC – A coalition of public interest organizations strongly condemned today's ruling by the US Supreme Court allowing unlimited corporate money in US elections and announced that it is launching a campaign to amend the United States Constitution to overturn the ruling.  The groups, Voter Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance, say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy.  They aim, through their constitutional amendment campaign, to correct the judiciary's creation of corporate rights under the First Amendment over the past three decades.  Immediately following the Court's ruling, the groups unveiled a new website – www.freespeechforpeople.org – devoted to this campaign.

"Free speech rights are for people, not corporations," says John Bonifaz, Voter Action's legal director.  "In wrongly assigning First Amendment protections to corporations, the Supreme Court has now unleashed a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in US history.  This campaign to amend the Constitution will seek to restore the First Amendment to its original purpose."

The public interest groups say that, since the late 1970s, a divided Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade democratic control and sidestep sound public welfare measures.  For the first two centuries of the American republic, the groups argue, corporations did not have First Amendment rights to limit the reach of democratically-enacted regulations.

"The corporate rights movement has reached its extreme conclusion in today's Supreme Court ruling," says Jeffrey Clements, general counsel to www.freespeechforpeople.org and a consultant to Voter Action.  "In recent years, corporations have misused the First Amendment to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms, from elections to healthcare, from financial reform to climate change and environmental protection, and more.  Today's ruling, reversing longstanding precedent which prohibits corporate expenditures in elections, now requires a constitutional amendment response to protect our democracy."  

In support of their new campaign, the groups point to prior amendments to the US Constitution which were enacted to correct egregiously wrong decisions of the US Supreme Court directly impacting the democratic process, including the 15th Amendment prohibiting discrimination in voting based on race and the 19th Amendment, prohibiting discrimination in voting based on gender.

"The Court has invented the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth," says Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen.  "There is surely no originalist interpretation to support this outcome, since the Court created the rights only in recent decades. Nor can the outcome be justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of the First Amendment.  Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line. Corporate spending on elections defeats rather than advances the democratic thrust of the First Amendment."

"With this decision, the Court has abandoned its usual practice of adjudicating non-constitutional claims before constitutional ones, a radical departure that indicates how far the Roberts Court may be willing to go in order to serve the powerful 'business civil liberties' agenda," says Charlie Cray, director of the Center for Corporate Policy. "While the immediate effect is likely to be a surge in corporate cash in election campaigns, this could also signal the beginning of a sustained attack on the rights and ability of everyday people to govern the behavior of corporations, which, if successful, could effectively eviscerate what's left of American democracy."

“American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters,  
states imposing poll taxes on voters, or the opponents of woman suffrage,” says Jamin Raskin, professor of constitutional law and the First Amendment at American University’s Washington College of Law.  “Today, the Court has enthroned corporations, permitting them not only all kinds of special economic rights but now, amazingly, moving to grant them the same political rights as the people. This is a moment of high danger for democracy so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people of the United States."
 
For more information on the constitutional amendment campaign, see www.freespeechforpeople.org.

Listen to the Press Call on the Supreme Court decision, Here.

View the Supreme Court ruling, Here.

To download the press release, Click Here.

The Voters Will Pay

The Voters Will Pay

The New York Times Feb 25 2010

It was bad news for the voting public when Election Systems and Software, the nation’s largest voting machine company, announced last fall that it was acquiring the elections division of Diebold, the nation’s second-largest voting machine company.

The combination could mean that nearly 70 percent of the nation’s precincts would use machines made by a single company. If the deal is allowed to go through, it would make it harder for jurisdictions to bargain effectively on price and quality. The Justice Department should reject it as a violation of antitrust rules that is clearly not in the public’s interest.
 

View Entire Article Here

Rep. Donna Edwards Just Introduced Constl. Amendment

Rep. Donna Edwards Just Introduced Constl. Amendment

David Swanson Daily Kos Feb 2 2010

Congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland introduced today a constitutional amendment bill to overturn the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling allowing unlimited corporate money in elections.  Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is a co-sponsor of the amendment bill.

A coalition of public interest organizations and independent business advocates praised the Congresswoman’s action.  The groups, Voter Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance, say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy.

View Entire Article Here

Citizens United v. FEC: Time for a Free Speech for People Amendment?

Citizens United v. FEC: Time for a Free Speech for People Amendment?

Jeff Clements American Constitution Society Blog Jan 21 2010

Today in a 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court held that the American people are powerless to stop corporations from using corporate funds to influence state and federal elections. Overruling McConnell v. FEC, decided only six years ago and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Court held that the restrictions on corporate expenditures in elections contained in the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated First Amendment protections of free speech. In effect, the majority decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) equates corporations with people for purposes of free speech and campaign expenditures.

This is an extraordinary ruling unhinged from traditional American understandings of both the First Amendment and corporations. Indeed, Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent calls the majority opinion a "radical departure from what has been settled First Amendment law."

View Entire Article Here

U.S. opens probe of Diebold unit sale

U.S. opens probe of Diebold unit sale

Ben Klayman Reuters Dec 19 2009

The U.S. Department of Justice and 14 states have opened investigations into the sale of Diebold Inc's (DBD.N) voting machines business to Election Systems & Software that could lead to the unwinding of the September sale, the New York Post said on Saturday.

The deal was too small to require government approval at the time, but it gave ES&S a 70 percent share of the voting machine market, the newspaper said.
 

View Entire Article Here

Nation’s First Open Source Election Software Released

Nation’s First Open Source Election Software Released

Kim Zetter Wired Oct 23 2009

A group working to produce an open and transparent voting system to replace current proprietary systems has published its first batches of code for public review.

The Open Source Digital Voting Foundation (OSDV) announced the availability of source code for its prototype election system Wednesday night at a panel discussion that included Mitch Kapor, creator of Lotus 1-2-3 and co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; California Secretary of State Debra Bowen; Los Angeles Cou

View Entire Article Here

Schumer Announces Senate Committee to Conduct Review of Proposed Diebold Merger; Says Deal Needs Additional Scrutiny

Schumer Announces Senate Committee to Conduct Review of Proposed Diebold Merger; Says Deal Needs Additional Scrutiny

Oct 9 2009
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), the Chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, raised new concerns Friday over Diebold’s proposed sale of its voting machine business to its biggest competitor, and announced that his Rules Committee staff would begin a formal review of potential problems posed by the merger. Schumer announced he would be seeking input from state and local election officials to investigate the deal’s impacts on the administration of elections across the United States. The findings will be compiled into a public report that could be shared with the Department of Justice.  

On Sept. 14th, Schumer requested that Attorney General Eric Holder examine the proposed sale of Diebold’s voting machine business, known as Premier Election Systems, to Nebraska-based Election Systems & Software Inc. (ES&S) for possible antitrust violations.

Read Entire Press Release Here

Voting Machine Variety: Virtual Monopoly Dangerous

Voting Machine Variety: Virtual Monopoly Dangerous

The Ledger Oct 5 2009

When an important product is under the control of a virtual monopoly, it rarely gets better. And make no mistake: U.S. voting technology needs to improve.

That cause is not likely to be helped by the recent merger of ES&S (the dominant Election Systems & Software) and Premier Election Solutions (formerly a subsidiary of Diebold). Together, they will serve nearly 70 percent of the nation's voting precincts.
 

Read Entire Article Here

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

Jess Bravin The Wall Street Journal Sep 17 2009

In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

View Entire Article Here

Antitrust Concerns Swirl Around Sale of Diebold Voting Machines

Antitrust Concerns Swirl Around Sale of Diebold Voting Machines

Kim Zetter Wired Sep 14 2009

Sen. Charles Schumer asked the Justice Department’s antitrust division on Monday to investigate the recent sale of Diebold’s voting machines division to a competitor, saying the deal raises anti-competitiveness concerns and has “adverse implications on how our country votes.”

The letter comes just days after another voting machine company filed an anti-trust lawsuit in federal court in Delaware against Diebold and Election Systems & Software.
 

View Entire Article Here
Syndicate content