RSN June Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Bonifaz writes: "Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court justices behind the notorious decision struck down a century-old Montana law curbing corruption in politics. Last week, California became the largest state yet to officially join the movement to end Citizens United for good."

States are passing legislation to end corporate personhood. (photo: Sam Lewis/MetroFocus)
States are passing legislation to end corporate personhood. (photo: Sam Lewis/MetroFocus)



States Close In on Citizens United

By John Bonifaz, Yes! Magazine

14 July 12

 

ast week, the State of California became the sixth state in the country to call for a constitutional amendment overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, and restoring democracy to the people.

With the passage of a resolution through its state legislature, California is the latest to join this growing grassroots movement across the nation.  Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont, and Rhode Island have passed similar resolutions through their state legislatures, and a majority of state legislators in Maryland have signed a letter to Congress supporting an amendment. And, just this past Wednesday, the Montana Secretary of State certified for the November ballot a voter initiative calling for a constitutional amendment, the first such statewide ballot measure in the country.

Without even hearing the case or reviewing the factual record before them, the nation’s highest court reversed the Montana Supreme Court and struck down the state’s century-old law.

All of this comes on the heels of another controversial Supreme Court decision, in a Montana case, that makes it clearer than ever that we the people must use our amendment power under the Constitution to defend our democracy.

In January 2010, just five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Citizens United, to sweep away a century of precedent barring corporate money in elections. They asserted that independent corporate expenditures would not corrupt the electoral process nor create the appearance of corruption.  They made that assertion without any facts to back it up.  This is because the petitioners in Citizens United never presented such facts in the first place and did not seek, in their original complaint, to overturn prior Supreme Court rulings prohibiting corporate political expenditures.  These five Justices, on their own, transformed the Citizens United case into a vehicle for unleashing unlimited corporate money in our elections.

We've Done It Before—With Slavery, Suffrage, and More: 7 Amendments That Overruled the Court

 

  1. The Eleventh Amendment—overturned, in 1795, a Supreme Court decision from 1793 allowing federal courts to hear cases in which a citizen of one state sues the government of another.
  2. The Thirteenth Amendment—abolished slavery, after Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) held that slaves could not sue for freedom because they and their children were not citizens.
  3. The Fourteenth Amendment—grants citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States. This also overrules Dred Scott's ruling that slaves were not eligible for citizenship.
  4. The Sixteenth Amendment—gives Congress the power to levy a direct national income tax, 18 years after  1895's  Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. held that individual income taxes were unconstitutional.
  5. The Nineteenth Amendment—guarantees women the right to vote, even though Minor v. Happersett (1875) had found that the Fourteenth Amendment did not include women.
  6. The Twenty-fourth Amendment—bans poll taxes in federal elections. Two Supreme Court rulings, Breedlove v. Suttles in 1937 and Butler v. Thompson in 1951, had allowed both state and federal governments to put financial conditions on the right to vote (designed to especially discourage African-American voters). The Court later decided, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), to ban poll taxes in states.
  7. The Twenty-sixth Amendment—allows 18-year-olds to vote in federal, state, and local elections. Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) had ruled that states could set their own minimum voting age. But with many 18-year-olds dying in the Vietnam war, the 26th amendment was adopted in 1971.

Two weeks ago, they had a chance to reconsider the decision—and the facts showing that independent corporate expenditures do lead to corruption and the appearance of corruption—by accepting for review the case of American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock: a case that addressed Montana’s century-old law barring corporate money in elections.

In 1912, the voters of Montana passed the Corrupt Practices Act in response to the dominance and control of their elections and government by the “Copper Kings,” the barons of the copper mining industry during the Gilded Age.

On December 30 of last year, the Montana Supreme Court issued a major ruling upholding the law after a corporate entity, American Tradition Partnership, had challenged it, seeking to spend its money in Montana elections.  The state supreme court recounted the extensive evidence of corruption that led to its passage and asked: “When in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did?”

The court cited in this history how W.A. Clark, a Copper King, had purchased a U.S. Senate seat by paying members of the Montana state legislature for their votes.  (Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishing direct elections of U.S. Senators by popular vote, state legislatures had appointed them.)

When the Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, he engaged in further corruption to obtain a second appointment, serving in the Senate from 1901 to 1907.  Clark’s bribery was so notorious that, as the Montana Supreme Court noted, in 1907 Mark Twain wrote that Clark “is said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment.  By his example he has so excused and so sweetened corruption that in Montana it no longer has an offensive smell.”

When American Tradition Partnership appealed, taking the Montana law to the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than reviewing this history and the factual evidence that justified the law, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, took the extraordinary step of issuing a summary reversal of a state supreme court ruling, denying any merits-based review of that decision.  In other words, without even hearing the case or reviewing the factual record before them, the nation’s highest court reversed the Montana Supreme Court and struck down the state’s century-old law. This is a radical action by the same five Justices—just as radical as the Citizens United ruling.

It is time to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court—and we the people have the power to do this.

We have used the Constitution’s Article V amendment power many times before. Seven of our 27 amendments have overturned egregious Supreme Court rulings, and since the Citizens United ruling, people across this country have been mobilizing in support of a new amendment to reclaim our democracy.

Hundreds of resolutions similar to the one approved in California last week have already been passed in cities and towns throughout the nation, including the cities of Boston, Los Angeles, New York, and Seattle.  Eleven state attorneys general have joined the call.  More than 1,000 business leaders are on board.  More than a dozen amendment bills related to Citizens United are now pending in the U.S. Congress.  The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to hold a hearing on amendment proposals on July 24.  And, the President of the United States has said an amendment may be necessary.

The Court’s decision in the Montana case will only further fuel this movement, as it is clearer than ever that this Court, under its current makeup, is not likely to revisit Citizens United any time soon.  The last two years of experience under the Citizens United ruling have demonstrated that independent expenditures from corporations and mega-wealthy individuals threaten the integrity of our elections, and we can expect to see even more of this in the coming months.

Americans across the political spectrum agree that corporations are not people and that the promise of government of, for, and by the people must be defended. We are at a crossroads. We’re facing one of our gravest tests.  But as in such moments of crisis before, we are coming together, and we will use our power under the Constitution to protect our republican democracy.


John Bonifaz wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and practical actions. John is co-founder and executive director of Free Speech For People.

Interested?

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+25 # indian weaver 2012-07-14 07:12
I wonder if we can impeach John Roberts for treason while we're at it? Or something like that, to make a point that he cannot sell out our government and we will not tolerate it or him, period.
 
 
+9 # jwb110 2012-07-14 10:09
Quoting indian weaver:
I wonder if we can impeach John Roberts for treason while we're at it? Or something like that, to make a point that he cannot sell out our government and we will not tolerate it or him, period.

The GOP certainly did everything possible to impeach Earl Warren., so why not!
 
 
+6 # indian weaver 2012-07-14 10:46
Yes, even making the effort to impeach this roberts would make a difference, and raise the importance and visibility of this important discussion.
 
 
+2 # PaineRad 2012-07-15 02:58
Considering that impeachment required a 2/3 vote in the House to indict and another 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict, who are we kidding?

I'm all for impeaching Thomas, Roberts and Alito for lying at their confirmation hearings. I'm all for impeaching Thomas and Scalia for conflicts of interest, i.e. corruption. I'm all for impeaching Thomas for flagrant illegal behavior. But we have to make a quasi-legal case. And we have to dramatically change the makeup of Congress.

Now, how many here are prepared to get out there and work their butts off to elect progressives, economic as well as social progressives, to the House and Senate?
 
 
+23 # tswhiskers 2012-07-14 07:41
I suspect the only way we will be able to overturn Citizens United will be if the we the people vote out a lot of Republicans in Federal and state elections. I can only hope that Republican governors have done enough crazy things that those up for election this year will be thrown out handily, but the electorate can do surprising things, e.g. the Wisc. recall election last month. I suspect many thought Scott Walker would surely be recalled, but in spite of all the noise he wasn't. Democrats have got to get out their votes.
 
 
+7 # ABen 2012-07-14 08:37
Take hope from exit polling info from that election. Nearly 50% of respondents indicated that they did not like the idea of recalling a gov for policy differences. However, more than 60% indicated they would vote for Obama. The recall election gave the state Senate back to the Dems, and I suspect Walker may be sent home in the next election.
 
 
+7 # AMLLLLL 2012-07-14 09:45
Yes, ABen, for months following the WI protests, they ran that insidious tv ad with the 'everyday' woman (an actress) extemporaneousl y opining that anyone who wanted a recall was just 'sour grapes'. That covered not only Walker, but his itchy cohorts. It was enough to tip the scales. Rachel Maddow was the only one I saw who reported on this, and there was NO pushback from the Dems. Shame on them.
 
 
+5 # AMLLLLL 2012-07-14 09:48
The Supreme Court is supposed to look at the results of the laws passed and correct to protect Constitutional tenets. These un-conservative maniacs should be impeached. Time for a people's correction.
 
 
+2 # PaineRad 2012-07-15 03:10
Having Dems in control of Congress is probably necessary but no sufficient. After all, both houses were solidly in Dem control from 2009 - 2011. But because so many Dems are Dems In Name Only, little really good got to the president's desk. We had then, and still have today, a host of senators who stand in the way of getting done what we need.

We need progressive, honest members of Congress. The presidency is insufficient. Having members with a 'D' after their name is insufficient.

We the People need to be engaged, not two weeks before the presidential election, but two decades before it. We need to expand our time horizons beyond the crisis management BS and fear mongering of presidential campaigns.

We need to push forward good people locally for school boards, city councils, county councils and state legislatures. We need to groom candidates, elect them to local and regional offices to give them good experience. Then we need to encourage them to run for higher office.

But if all we do is listen to TV ads, read a thousand emails from 50 different online petition sites talking about this upcoming election, we will have lost our chance to shape elections. We have to make the decisions of who gets on the ballot instead of holding our noses and voting for the evil of two lessers.
 
 
+10 # ABen 2012-07-14 08:48
Al who are horrified by the Citizens United ruling and its obvious corrosive affects on campaigns/elect ions should go to movetoamend.org and make their sentiment known. No representative political system can avoid the inexorable slide into plutocracy when money (wealth) equates to speech. While we are at fixing problems with our electoral process, lets remind the FCC who really owns the airwaves and demand free air time for political ads--the same amount for all registered candidates.
 
 
+6 # Wolfchen 2012-07-14 20:11
We need a constitutional amendment to achieve public financing of both state and federal elections. That's the only way to prevent a perverted and corrupt Supreme Court from further eroding our freedoms and decent into plutocracy.

Such and amendment to undue the desecrating influence of Citizens United would only be a stop-gap measure. Only public financing of elections will be strong enough to rout the tyranny of Wall Street.

Let's stop settling for half measures in financial and health care matters. Ergo, we also need to continue our insistence on establishing Medicare for All. We don't need insurance companies as middlemen in health care.
 
 
+2 # indian weaver 2012-07-15 07:07
Most of Europe already had single payer government supported health care for all citizens when I first visited in Spring, 1969. That is almost 1/2 century ago and they still have it. So, how about Amerika, how long have we had universal health care? Oh, gee, not yet? You've gotta be kidding.
 
 
0 # Bigfella 2012-07-15 19:05
I remember when the USA health zare came out to Australia and was asked "why is private health cover was better?" by a reporter and he replied "It's not! world wide the cheapest health costs are in countries that have a single Government cover and I don't understand why your Government is now allowing private cover as it will drive up cost. But it your Government not mine." She sat there stunned and moved onto a break after she sat silent and wells stunned.
On returning she then asked him "Your from the USA? right?"(Thinkin g he may be Candanian or something..LOL) "Yes and a Democrat not a far right Repubilician that seem to only get air here." He worked for Bill Clinton....
 
 
+1 # PaineRad 2012-07-15 02:50
Spending the time and energy merely to "overturn" Citizens United is a monstrous waste of time. Yes, we must make it clear that even though money buys speech, it is not speech. Money is fungible; speech is not. Really BIG Money has the ability to monopolize speech.

But we must also remove from the clutches of corporations those few human birthrights listed in the Constitution. If not, we will have gone through all the trouble of securing an amendment without having achieved very much. After all, American politics and campaigns were already a mess long before CU.

Buckley, Bellotti, SpeechNOW, Carey and a host of other SCOTUS decisions must be obliterated. The path must be cleared to make public financing of elections possible, even inevitable.

The corporate and limited liability forms of business give them certain legal abilities. It does not give them human birthrights. And they must justify and earn those privileges every year by serving the public interest instead merely the private interest of their shareholders or lose their privileges, namely surrendering their charters.
 
 
+1 # hammermann 2012-07-15 14:43
Lousy article in that it didn't mention the very high bar for an Amendment. It's a tough, nay impossible, row to hoe with such heavy Repub control of statehouses and Congress- (amendment needs 2/3 vote in both House + Senate and ¾ of the states ratifying it). Since it massively tilts the playing field to the Repubs, think they would really want to see it struck down?

There is no chance, baring wholesale decimation of Repubs in next election (90%) for this in the foreseeable future. Impeaching Thomas is the way to go- he's a lazy, stupid, corrupt hack who has never questioned anyone or swayed from his extreme radical sponsors. Scalia is corrupt and partisan, but not stupid and completely incompetent. Roberts, as his ACA decision showed has some shreds of sanity left.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN