Let's have more calls to upend the Citizens United ruling
Barb ShellyGood for the Kansas City Council. I consider it a point of pride that the elected officials unanimously approved a resolution opposing the U.S. Supreme Court’s horrible “Citizens United” ruling, which opened the door to the tsunami of campaign money that is polluting this year’s elections.
The resolution by itself won’t cause anything to happen, of course. But by adding its voice to that of other cities and groups, the Kansas City Council adds weight to the growing call for the Supremes to revisit the issue of campaign spending.
They absolutely need to. As this story by the Chicago Tribune’s Washington Bureau explains, the justices themselves may be alarmed at what their ruling created.
As the writers explain:
… the impact of the Citizens United decision has been as surprising and controversial as the ruling. Although the high court’s 5-4 decision is best known for saying corporations may spend freely on campaign ads, the gusher of money pouring into this year’s campaigns mostly hasn’t involved corporate funds. And some practices that critics of the decision decry actually stem from a later case decided by a federal appellate court after Citizens United.
The appellate decision, in the case SpeechNow.org vs. FEC, cited Citizens United for its reasoning that if the First Amendment guarantees unrestricting political spending, then political action committees should also be able to collect unlimited sums, as long as they, like corporations, are “independent,” meaning not directly linked to a candidate.
That, as we have seen, is ludicrous. The two rulings have caused people with close ties to candidates to set up super PACs, able to raise unlimited sums of money from wealthy people and spend them on negative campaign ads. It is the most dramatic corruption of our political process to come along in years.
People seeking reform are asking the Supreme Court to take up a Montana case that raises many of the campaign finance issues seen in Citizens United. For the sake of the nation, let’s hope the justices see fit to do that.
In the meantime, it couldn’t hurt for more local governments and individual citizens to go on record.
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoOK ms. shelly, I will go on record as supporting the fundamental right of corporations, and unions, which your column as expected, did not mention, to have unlimited free speech in supporting candidates of their choice.
You fascists are all for telling people what to do, luckily the SCOTUS realizes you have no right to tell people and institutions how to donate their money in the support of political candidates….
The kc council in passing this resolution merely shows itself to be a bunch of dummies. They can’t fix sewers, or crime, or roads, but they can for sure try to limit free speech. Libs in action!!!
Geez!
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoWhere is ms. sanchez’s column on how wonderful it is to have the Dream Act by Executive Order. The big 0, no law deserves to be followed his majesty deems unworthy.
And the “progresssssssssssssssives” bitch and moan how W ignored laws—pretty funny given what jimmy II is doing with existing laws…
George Harris
Kansas City
1 year agoWhere in the Constitution are corporations and unions mentioned? Where are they given the rights of human beings, such as the right of free speech?
Where in the Constitution are individual people given the right to donate their own money to political causes and/or candidates without being identified?
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoWhere is it prohibited George?
Kent Mueller
1 year agoBarb, your leaving the unions out by name is consistent, yet still amazing. You would do well to write completely.
But why all this feel good stuff? I’m sure you know the Supreme Court doesn’t survey the country to see what rulings to revisit. What sense does that resolution make? It has no effect. It does no good. It cannot change anything.
This is the same as the Missouri State Legislature passing resolutions regarding federal laws, to which the Star roundly provided cynical criticism.
JR Beillenhouser
1 year agoExpect no talk about unions and how they flood elections with money. Or Acorn that uses it clout and federal money to push a progressive agenda. Expect no talk on the presidential fiat whereby the POTUS jumps over congress, which will not pass the Dream Act, and just do it himself. On the other hand, expect Scott Walker to be vilified even though his legislature passes the Wisconsin bill and he won not one for 2 elections in 3 years.
Expect no talk about drones and their use in our own country or the world. But do expect articles on how evil the patriot act is.
Expect no talk about wars and murder and enemy combatants when a liberal does it. Don’t talk about the murder of US citizens on foreign soil without a trial or jury. But do expect protests and rantings by the editorial board about wars and detainment when a republican does it.
It is all too tiring, predictable and the reason why the media is dying in this country.
Suzanne Conaway
1 year agoI have been working with the “Move to Amend” group and, yes unions would also be covered by the amendment to overturn the Citizens’ United verdict.
However, at least when unions donate, we know where the money comes from. The way the Citizens’ United decision is set up, the money can be wrapped up, tied up, veiled and hidden with no money trail, so we don’t know who is actually doing the donating.
George, you’re right that unions and/or corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution. However, there were no unions back then and corporations were nothing like the business corporations we have now.
If you’re interested in the history of corporations in America, the Move to Amend website has some info in their FAQ section.
JR Beillenhouser
1 year agoHow much did Obama raise last election? Did any of that come from corporations? Did Obama get any money from wall street last time? The answer to both is yes, and it was more money that McCain got. So what is the big issue? It was fine for Obama, it should be fine for his opponent.
Mark Hastert
1 year agoMoney is not speech. A strict originalist would say that speech is what comes out of a citizen’s mouth not his purse. The SCOTUS was wrong. There are already rumores that they have come to realize this and will amend their ruling in the Montana case. Corporations and unions are not people until they are taxed as people and subject to the law as people or can get the death penalty like people.
Kent Mueller
1 year agoSuzanne, the comments about unions have more to do with Barb Shelly’s seeming refusal to mention union in the same breath as corporation when writing about Citizen’s United.
To question the advantages granted to corporations via Citizen’s United is valid and appropriate. However to do so without ever mentioning unions is crass hypocrisy.
Mary Lindsay
1 year agoThe word “corporation” is not in the US Constitution. Corporations have been “interpreted into the Constitution” by unelected Supreme Court justices through the 14th Amendment (which gave freed slaves citizenship rights in 1868).
What in the language of the 14th Amendment seems to YOU that it intended corporations to have Constitutional rights?
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
We the People of the United State must amend the Constitution to affirm that only human beings (not corporations, unions or any other entity) have constitutional rights.
www.MoveToAmend.org
Paul Westlake
1 year agoMost unions ARE corporations. And the Move To Amend language includes the same restrictions on unions as it does any other legal fiction. As Mark Hastert said, a strict constructionist should be more concerned about an activist Court using extremely expansive definitions of personhood and speech to grant more and more civil rights to associations that already enjoy special economic privileges AND limited liability.
A strict constructionist should be very concerned about granting unlimited political spending power to the very entities that society has already granted the ability to accumulate the most wealth the fastest. A rugged libertarian individualist should see that the obvious result of all this unlimited spending by associations is a modern feudalism that subverts the individual, as each of us has to join with some group, any group, just to have any political relevance and, eventually, economic viability.
The classic small government theorist should see by now that transnational corporate feudalism would be no better a bureaucracy to govern our country than the one we have now. Isn’t it time to join forces where we know we can make the most progress? Help us overturn the odious Citizens United ruling and we’ll help you end the odious debt-backed currency problem once and for all. Whaddaya say? :)
http://amendment-gazette.blogspot.com/
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoI will take a dirty corporation spending its money over a bureaucrat making the rules ANY DAY.
I could ask where in the constitution it says a person can kill a viable baby, but I won’t ask that to you “strick constitutionalists” that question…. :-)
Suzanne Conaway
1 year agoTo all: I really wish the USA would use the British model of elections. In Great Britain, (at least it used to be) the campaigning time is limited to six weeks and funding for each party is strictly limited and completely transparent.
I’d be happy just to see campaigning limited to six weeks!
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoWay too much of an advantage to the incumbent Suzanne….
Of course, with your big 0 it doesn’t matter since he has been campaigning since assuming the throne…..
What’s his number of fundraisers now????
JR Beillenhouser
1 year agoAnd Obama continues to do his campaigning on our dime.
Doug Ballard
1 year agoThis Amendment does not limit the right to free speech. You are exercising your free speech right, even now by commenting on this column. The voices of human beings, spoken or written is the intent of the 1st amendment. It is a pure and simple concept. Speech was never intended to include money and here is the reason why. Money = power and influence. The individuals or alliances that influence elections by using huge amounts of money are drowning out the voices of citizens who like you and me and yes, Unions too, do not have the resources to match their spending. Unions have been tossed nothing but a well chewed bone by the Citizens United and previous money equals speech decisions. Corporations and rich individuals are able to out spend Unions by millions even billions of dollars in elections. Big money is why Union busting Scott Walker remains the Governor of Wisconsin after the recall election. Union Brothers and Sisters must look to the reality they live in and not the deception that the corporations and the rich would have you believe.
Mary Lindsay
1 year agoI agree with all that Doug Ballard wrote.
I do want to make it perfectly clear, however, that MoveToAmend.org is fighting to amend the US Constitution to affirm that ONLY human beings have Constitutional rights—NOT corporations, NOT unions or any other entities!
JR Beillenhouser
1 year agoGood luck with that Mary. Aint going to happen.
And Doug, big money is not why Scott Walker remains the governor. Alot of money was spent on both sides. In addition, the anti Walker people had free publicity from a press intent on his downfall for over a year. What was the value of a typically left leaning press giving support to the protesters and their causes.
Which brings us to why citizens united is really just a whipping horse for the left. It is really just a strawman, an excuse, for why they are now losing elections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/montana-attempts-to-buck-the-supreme-court-on-citizens-united/2012/05/30/gJQA4DCi2U_story.html
Corporations are not pumping in money into PACs as the left want us to believe.
Funny how it is ok when Soros does it, but no on else can.
Also, if it evens out the playing field for elections that the left dominated media uses their power to persuade, then so be it.
Mark Hastert
1 year agoJustice Samuel Alito shook his head and appeared to mouth “Not true.” when the President warned that the ruling would open the flood gates to the flood of money in elections. I wonder if he’s ready to admit he was wrong.
JR Beillenhouser
1 year agoMark -
Exactly how much did Obama raise in 2008? ‘nough said.
Kent Mueller
1 year agoDue to the specifics of Wisconsin state law pertaining to recall elections, the same amount of money would have been spent even without Citizens United. So, why are we talking about Citizens United and Walker’s recall election?
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoBecause the progressssssssssssssives lost Kent and they realize their beloved public sector unions are on the decline….
When you lose, you look for scapegoats and freedom of speech, except theirs, is as good as any to the progresssssssssssssives….
Mark Hastert
1 year agoI’m against the Citizens United ruling in all cases for both parties, particularly the anonymity. It’s cowardly. If you won’t stand behind your beliefs you are not worthy of any credibility. Until very recently both parties agreed on that. The law that the CU ruling struck down was bi-partisan. Sheldon Adelson was recently quoted as saying that he was personally opposed to the billionaires meddling in elections but as long as it is legal he is going to do it. There’s a man of principle for you. That’s how low we’ve sunk, legal now equals moral. Be it Adelson, Soros, or any one of the other handful of men who own our government and our country the voice of ordinary citizens has been suppressed by money.
Kent Mueller
1 year agoMark, the Supreme Court did not require those contributions to be anonymous.