What is Citizens United?Why is there concern?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission •On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court unleashed a flood of corporate money into our political system by ruling that, •Corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote or defeat candidates (this includes all entities – unions, associations, non-profits, etc.).

•Contrary to longstanding precedents•Established that money is speech

•The decision in this historic case – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – •Overturned a century of campaign finance law•Stands to deal a devastating blow to our democracy unless we act.

The Issue:Citizens United, allows unlimited money via entities of

unions, corporations, and non-profits. It allows 501(c)4 & 501(c)6 undisclosed monies - including foreign money from

Trade Associations:

•It maintains that entity expenditures cannot corrupt elected officials, that influence over lawmakers is not corruption, and that the appearance of influence will not undermine public faith in our democracy.•i.e, allows politicians to be bought by the highest entity bidder.•rules that money is speech (replacing democracy by plutocracy – entities with the most money buy and rule our government via control of campaign financing and media influence).

U.S. law still bans foreign corporations from participating directly in elections. But after Citizens United, trade associations like API—whose influential members include foreign corporations—are free to spend as they wish, unburdened by disclosure requirements. And these groups have taken full advantage of their new freedoms. While other campaign committees, from labor unions to Super PACs, face strict transparency rules, trade associations enjoy unparalleled power to covertly manipulate elections using corporate money.

http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business-buying-election#

“Free” Speech is not protected when it is determined by how much money you can contribute to influence a campaign, and

entities are declared to be ‘people’

“Free” Speech for an individual is capped at $2,600 for contribution to

campaign and must be disclosed.

“Free” Speech contribution to super PAC (political action campaign) by entity or

individual is unlimited. Trade associations and other non profit groups are

unlimited and undisclosed.

• Candidates and traditional candidate committees can accept $2,600 from individuals per election.

• Candidates and traditional candidate committees are prohibited from accepting money from corporations, unions and associations. Federal election code prohibits those entities from contributing directly to candidates or candidate committees.

• Super PACs, though, have no limitations on who contributes or how much they contribute; they can raise as much money from corporations, unions and other organizations as they please and spend unlimited amounts on overtly advocating for the election or defeat of the candidates of their choice.

• Trade Associations and Social Welfare organizations require no disclosure and are also unlimited, though they are not PACs. Trade Associations may have foreign members.

$$$$$Campaign Financing & Super PACs$$$$$SUPER MONEY = SUPER POWER versus your citizen power

Why are super PACs so controversial?• Critics who believe money corrupts the political process say the

court rulings and creation of super PACs opened the floodgates to widespread corruption. In 2012, U.S. Sen. John McCain warned: "I guarantee there will be a scandal, there is too much money washing around politics, and it’s making the campaigns irrelevant."

• McCain and other critics said the rulings allowed wealthy corporations and unions to have an unfair advantage in electing candidates to federal office.

• In writing his dissenting opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens opined of the majority: "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."

Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court

has violated: •The Sovereignty of the American people over their government•The Constitution

•First Amendment rights given to entities•Nowhere in the Constitution does it declare that money is speech or that entities (corporations, unions, non-profits) are people•Takes away Congress’ right to regulate elections granted under Art. 1 Sect. 4•States rights - overruled without explanation

•Precedents of historical court rulings

Sovereignty

•We should also be sovereign over everything the government creates •All legal fictions are creations of government.• If the creation is given power over the creator, then sovereignty is lost

•A person is a private entity with rights and sovereignty•The American people are sovereign over the government, not the other way around.

End the Doctrine that Money is Speech

•In Buckley v Valeo (1976), the Court ruled that money equals speech. The corollary is this: people, who have money can speak, and people who don’t, can’t. This is how a plutocracy is defined, not a democratic Republic.•Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that money is a form of speech. The assertion that money is speech is legislating from the bench (and a violation of separation of powers).(Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) struck down limits on independent expenditures as unconstitutional)

Buckley usurped Congress’ power to regulate the manner of elections

•The Constitution is very clear about this. Article I, Section IV states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.” •Both Buckley and Citizens United are fundamentally un-Constitutional decisions and represent a power-grab by the Supreme Court.

Montana state law to stop election

corruption nullified

•In 2012, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court led that states cannot have their own campaign finance laws, and that all 50 states must abide by 2010 s Citizens ′United ruling.•More than 20 states’ attorneys general (including the District of Columbia’s) urged the court to uphold the Montana law, arguing that corporate and union expenditures lead to corruption.

Failure by Supreme Courtto fulfill its function

in our constitutional system •The court’s refusal to explain its decision on Montana’s law creates greater uncertainty for lower courts, state legislatures and those who run political campaigns, and it will invite many more challenges to other states’ campaign finance laws.•One of the most important jobs of the U.S. Supreme Court is to create clarity, certainty and predictability regarding the meaning of the law. The public needs to know what acts are legal and illegal, and why. •The court often is the chief expositor of the U.S. Constitution. If the court fails to explain its decisions, then it fails to fulfill its function in our constitutional system.

Citizens United breaks precedent:

•Stare decisis (“star-ree dee-sigh-sis.”) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.

Citizens United breaks precedent:Historical background

Tillman Act of 1907, banned corporations' contributions to political parties or candidates for any federal election campaignsTaft Hartley Act of 1947, banned expenditures by corporations and unions in connection with general and primary federal electionsFederal Election Campaign Act of 1971 put limits on expenditures in campaignsAustin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) upheld a Michigan law that prohibited corporations but not unions from using funds for individual expendituresBipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, prohibited "electioneering communication" by corporations unless from a segregated PAC fundMcConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) upheld Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 regulation of "electioneering communication"

Conservative leadership voices grave concerns

•Republican Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) and the party's 2008 presidential nominee, said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns".[53] McCain was "disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions" but not surprised by the decision, saying that "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA."[46] •Republican Senator Olympia Snowe opined that "Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country."[54]

Journalists alarm

•The New York Times stated in an editorial, "The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election."•Jonathan Alter called it the "most serious threat to American democracy in a generation".•The Christian Science Monitor wrote that the Court had declared "outright that corporate expenditures cannot corrupt elected officials, that influence over lawmakers is not corruption, and that appearance of influence will not undermine public faith in our democracy".

Since the Court’s Decision, Corporate Expenditures Have Soared

Since the Court’s Decision, Corporate Expenditures Have Soared • Spending by outside groups rose 427% in the 2010 elections, to $294.2 million. vi • Super PACs, which were created after an appeals court applied Citizens United, have collectively spent more than $123 million during Campaign 2012. Overall outside spending as of June 19, 2012 was over $150 million. viii • Outside spending made a big difference in the 2010 congressional elections; outside groups backed the winners in 58 of the 74 contests in which power changed hands. ix • Overall spending in the 2012 election is predicted to reach new heights – up to $9.8 billion! x

The result – what is needed to fix this?

Why a Constitutional Amendment ?• A constitutional amendment is the long-term solution to fully restore individuals’ rights and assert once and for all that democracy is for people, not corporations (or other entities such as unions, non-profits, trade associations, welfare organizations ). • Join: www.MoveToAmendJacksonCounty.org• Contact: JCMoveToAmend@gmail.com

Informative Links• http://democracyisforpeople.org/supreme-court-ruling.php• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission• http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-

big-business-buying-election#• http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml• http://uspolitics.about.com/od/firstamendment/a/What-Is-A-Super-

Pac.htm • http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/01/19/us/politics/0120-

scotus-campaign.html • http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2012/07/01/why-principled-

conservatives-should-support-an-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/