• The International Association For Public Participation – An international leader in public participation, IAP2 has developed the “IAP2 Core Values for Public Participation” for use in the development and implementation of public participation processes. www.IAP2.org
• Coffee Party Austin – See Co-Sponsors list. http://www.facebook.com/austincoffeeparty
• Coffee Party USA – http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/
• Common Cause – See Co-Sponsors list. http://www.commoncause.org/site/
• Gray Panthers – See Co-Sponsors list. http://www.graypanthers.org/
• MoveOn.Org – See Co-Sponsors list. http://www.moveon.org/
• Non Profit Action – Offers comprehensive information for nonpartisan nonprofits. www.NPAction.org
• Public Citizen – See Co-Sponsors list. http://action.citizen.org/
• Results – Creating long-term solutions to poverty by supporting programs that address its root causes: lack of access to medical care, education, or opportunity to move up the economic ladder. www.Results.org
• Tea Party Austin – http://www.meetup.com/tax-day-tea-party-austin-tx/; http://havinganaustinteaparty.com/

• AlterNet – http://www.alternet.org/
• Information Clearinghouse – http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25253.htm
• KOOP Radio – 91.7 FM – Alternative news and music. http://www.koop.org/
• Liberal Oasis – Website and blog dedicated to revitalizing liberalism. http://www.liberaloasis.com/
• Progressive Populist – Twice-monthly journal from the Heartland that reports on issues of interest to workers, small businesses and family farmers. http://www.populist.com/
• Truthout and Reader Supported News – Online independent political discussion focusing on under-covered issues and unconventional thinking. http://www.truthout.org/ or http://readersupportednews.org
• Yes! Magazine – Concerned with building a more just, sustainable, and compassionate future with articles about economic alternatives and peace options. http://www.yesmagazine.org/

• Legislative Strategies: SEE Policy Briefings
• Americans for Financial Reform – Unprecedented group of national and state organizations, including MoveOn.org, that have joined together to fix our financial sector and make sure it’s working for all Americans. http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/#
• Move to Amend – http://www.movetoamend.org/
• New Economy Working Group – contribute to reframing the economic policy debate to address the social and environmental imperatives and opportunities of the 21st Century. Their work is organized around ten action clusters. See the ten clusters here http://www.neweconomyworkinggroup.org/
• Pew Financial Reform Project – Pew’s Financial Reform Project brings a nonpartisan, fact-based approach to reforming and modernizing the financial sector. http://www.pewfr.org/
• Sunlight Foundation – Making government transparent and accountable. http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/
• Video – Getting a Grip on Money and Politics, Part I and II http://www.smallplanet.org/Video/

• Americans for Campaign Reform – Non-partisan, grassroots organization whose mission is to mobilize support for public funding of all federal elections. http://www.youstreet.org
• Brookings Institute – Campaign Finance http://www.brookings.edu/topics/campaign-finance.aspx
• The Campaign Finance Institute – Conducts research and education, empanels task forces, and makes recommendations for policy change in the field of campaign finance. http://www.cfinst.org/
• Clean Elections Texas – This website is the statewide go-to resource for clean elections in Texas. www.cleanelectionstx.org/
• Fair Elections Now Act – http://www.fairelectionsnow.org
• Fix Congress First – To restore public trust in our government by passing a hybrid of small-dollar donations and public financing of elections FixCongressFirst.org is a project of Change Congress, a non-partisan advocacy organization whose sole purpose is to protect the independence of Congress by fighting the influence of money in politics. http://www.fixcongressfirst.org
• League of Women Voters – http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Campaign_Finance_Reform&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=22&ContentID=4347
• Public Campaign – Clean elections, clean money. http://www.publicampaign.org
• Public Campaign Library on money and politics – http://library.publicampaign.org/new
• Video – Clean Elections: Changing the Face of Democracy, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtwC67DCfPg

• The Alliance for Democracy – Progressive populists working to end corporate domination, establish true democracy, and build a just society. http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/
• Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) – North America’s fastest growing network of socially responsible businesses, comprised of over 80 community networks with over 21,000 independent business members across the U.S. and Canada. http://www.livingeconomies.org/
• Citizen Trade Campaign/Texas Fair Trade Coalition – National coalition of environmental, labor, consumer, family farm, religious, and other civil society groups founded in 1992 to improve the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). http://www.citizenstrade.org/txftc.php
• Critical Think.org – Leading Conservative and Progressive Think Tanks. http://www.criticalthink.info/webindex/alt-news.htm
• Democracy 21 – Dedicated to making democracy work for all Americans. http://www.democracy21.org/
• Democracy Matters – National student organization with a focus on campaign finance reform through clean elections systems. http://www.democracymatters.org/
• DEMOS – Demos works with advocates and policymakers around the country in pursuit of four overarching goals: a more equitable economy with widely shared prosperity and opportunity; a vibrant and inclusive democracy with high levels of voting and civic engagement; an empowered public sector that works for the common good; and responsible U.S. engagement in an interdependent world. http://www.demos.org/index.cfm
• Equal Justice Center – Empowering low-income families, workers and communities to achieve fair treatment in the workplace and in the justice system. http://www.equaljusticecenter.org/index.html
• Fact Check.Org – www.factcheck.org
• Liberal Democracy Alliance – A group of retired military activists dedicated to protecting American Democracy from Fascism – www.liberaldemocracyalliance.org
• Open Secrets – Nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy. www.opensecrets.org
• People-Centered Development Forum – Dedicated to nurturing this awakening and the alliance building that follows in cooperation with civil society groups around the world to articulate, expose the causes of our collective crisis and to point to the possibility of creating a post-corporate, post-capitalist world of living democracies, mindful market economies, and authentic cultures. http://www.pcdf.org
• Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy – a group of 11 people instigating democratic conversations and actions that contest the authority of corporations to govern. www.POCLAD.org
• Texas Civil Rights Project – Tireless advocate for racial, social and economic equality in Texas, through education and litigation programs.www.texascivilrightsproject.org

1. The Case:

In Citizens United v. F.E.C. (1-21-10), the Supreme Court held that placing limits on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections violated the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. The ruling applies equally to unions and other associations.

2. The  Rationale:

Justice Kennedy, speaking for the 5-4 majority, wrote that, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens
or associations of citizens for engaging in political speech” and that to allow Congress such power would allow Congress to suppress   political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs”.

3.  The Dissent:

Justice Stevens, speaking for the minority, stated that the ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation”, and further, that, “The opinion is 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 corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt”, referring to the Tillman Act of 1907, which prohibited corporate contributions to candidates in Federal campaigns.

4. The Reaction:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): “The Court struck a blow for the First Amendment”; Republican campaign consultant Ed Rollins: “The decision adds transparency to the election process and will make it more competitive”; Heritage Foundation: “The Court has restored a part of the First Amendment that had been stolen by Congress”; Cato Institute: “Equality of speech is inherently contrary to protecting speech from government restraint”; Center For Competitive Politics: “Incumbent politicians are frightened by empowering small and midsize corporations and every incorporated mom-and-pop joint, local firefighters’ union and environmental group to make its voice heard.”

President Obama: “This  ruling strikes at our democracy itself; the decision gives special interests more power in Washington and undermines the influence of average Americans who make small contributions.”  Senator Russ Feingold (D-Minnesosa): “This decision is a terrible mistake”; Senator John McCain (R-Arizona): “There’s going to be a backlash…when you see the amounts of union and corporate money going into political campaigns”; Ralph Nader: “Corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate dollars”.

An ABC-Washington Post poll conducted February 4-8, 2010 showed that
80% of those surveyed opposed ( 65% strongly) the ruling; 72% supported
an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending.

5. The Constitution : Founders’ Intent:

The Constitution is silent on the subject of corporations. The Declaration of Independence speaks only of the rights of natural persons President Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, refers to a Nation, “ of the people, by the people and for the people”. Few corporate charters existed in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted. As noted by Justice Stevens in his dissent, it is no secret that Thomas Jefferson disliked corporations, especially banking corporations; both Jefferson and  John Adams feared special interests and concentrations of wealth in the few.

6. The Judicial Magic:

How did it come to pass that the Supreme Court has held that artificial beings, such as corporations, have the same rights of free speech as people, i.e. human beings?

Since the Court’s ruling cannot be explained by logic, biology, science, or as Justice Stevens held, “common sense”, the only explanation for the ruling is  judicial magic.(1)

7. The Illusions:

Note that Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion, held that the First Amendment Free Speech Clause(2) prohibits Congress from “fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens for engaging in political speech.”

Illusion 1:    Since corporations are inanimate entities, they can only “speak” through the expenditure of money; such expenditures are the same as speech.

The equation is thus:     Money = Speech(3)

Illusion 2:    Disregarding the legal fact that corporations are separate legal entities
from its shareholders, employees and officers, corporations are merely “associations of citizens”.(4)

This equation is thus:    Corporations=Associations of Citizens=
People=First Amendment “Speakers”

Illusion 3:    Disregarding the overwhelming power of money in politics today
and common sense, allowing  corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns is  beneficial to the body politic; otherwise such restrictions would interfere with the “open
marketplace” of ideas and “muffle the principal agents of the modern
free economy” (Justice Scalia).(5)

Illusion 4:    “Corporate political expenditures do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption; the fact that “speakers” may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials
are corrupt; the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.” (Justice Kennedy).(6)

8. The Good News:

The Court upheld requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements set out in the McCain-Feingold Act.(7) And, the ruling applies  to all other associations, except, possibly, terrorist organizations.

9.  The Impact:

Since decisions of the Supreme Court are the “law of the land” pursuant to the Supremacy Clause(8), the continued validity of any restriction on political expenditures is obvious. The only form of political corruption not touched by
the opinion is direct, “quid pro quo”, purchase of votes, i.e. bribery. All other expenditures to influence elections , in any amount,  have been declared
non-corruptive. The Court has decided that corporate “free speech”, in the form of money, is more important than preserving the integrity of the electoral process.

10. The Future:

John Kerry has called for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C.  Senator Charles Schumer has introduced legislation to require full disclosure of contributions to campaigns and  ban contributions by foreign corporations. Justice Stevens has announced his retirement since the decision was issued, but since he was in the minority, one new Justice will not make a difference. Others have re-urged the concept of publicly financed elections and restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.

Our experiment with the idea of popular sovereignty continues.

Lou McCreary
May 4, 2010

Footnotes:
1  “Magic-the art of producing illusions”, Webster.
2  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press…”. Amendment 1,Constitution.
3  Buckley v. Valeo (S.Ct. 1976).
4 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Ry. (S.Ct. 1886).
5 See Lewis Powell, “Attack On Free Enterprise System”, 1971.
6  As of 2004, 60,000 corporate lobbyists worked the halls of Congress; in 1999, unions contributed $ 33 M in “soft” money, corporations contributed $ 368M; Nace, Gangs of America; The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the largest force for corporate lobbying in America, spending
$ 91.7 M in 2008 and $ 144.5 M in 2009. Wikepedia “U.S. Chamber of Commerce”.
7  As noted in footnote 6, the Chamber of Commerce acts as a conduit for its corporate members for which there is no disclosure requirement as to source of contributions or “dues”.
8 Art. VI, Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC seriously undermined those democratic values by expanding the rights of special interests and corporations to spend influence elections.  As a coalition we should press our elected officials to take swift action before the 2010 elections.

Why This Decision Matters:  A corporation may now contribute unlimited funds advertising its support for or opposition to a candidate.  A corporation cannot donate or coordinate directly with a campaign.  Some analysts have been dismissive of this as a “game-changing” decision, noting that it would be dumb politics for a company like Exxon to fund a bunch of television advertising before an election.  Those analysts miss the point – large corporations will fund other groups to carry water for them, be it a puppet group like “Citizens United,” or the Chamber of Commerce, which is already receiving record contributions heading into the 2010 election.

Long-Term Solution
The only way to legislatively overturn a Supreme Court decision is a constitutional amendment.  This is difficult to do, but people are passionate about this, and amendments have passed many times before in our history.  In the House, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) has introduced language for a Constitutional Amendment (attached below).

In the Senate, Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Tom Udall (D-NM) have introduced an amendment as well, though the language is different from Edwards’ (attached below).  Other Senators that have expressed interest include Ben Cardin (D-MD) and John Kerry (D-MA).

A more robust constitutional amendment could deal with Citizens United but also a larger issue about leveling the playing field among public and private special interests in influencing the crafting of public policy.

Representatives should be pressed for whether they support the idea of a constitutional amendment relating to corporate spending in political campaigns.

Short-Term Solutions
The Supreme Court decision may have been a setback for democracy, but it left several issues of campaign finance unresolved, and ripe for Congressional legislation.

A set of proposals have been advanced by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) in the House and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in the Senate.   The ideas being floated: Ban foreign contributions, prevent bailout recipients who have not paid back federal funds from spending unlimited funds, impose new disclosure requirements on corporate donations, implement stand-by-your-ad provisions on corporate-backed ads and require that candidates get reasonable airtime to rebut corporate ads.   Any of these remedies will be challenged in court.

Schumer and Van Hollen have promised to hold hearings and enact legislation “before the 2010 elections.”  The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has been holding hearings for several weeks.  Representatives should be pressed on whether they will follow the hearings, and whether they support enacting campaign finance reform before the 2010 elections.

Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA), has introduced the Shareholder Protection Act of 2010, (H.R 4790) requiring shareholder and board of directors’ approval of corporate expenditures and boards of directors would have to vote on political spending over $50,000.  This will face both legal and logistical challenges.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has also sponsored a set of bills responding to Citizens United. (attached below).  Of his five proposed bill, one has been referred to Committee.

Edwards Amendment
‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.”

‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”

Dodd-Udall Amendment
The constitutional amendment would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures, and allow states to regulate such spending at their level. It would also provide for implementation and enforcement of the amendment through legislation.

Congressman Alan Grayson’s “Save Our Democracy” Reform Package (H.R. 4431-4435)

The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431)
Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.

The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435)
Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.

The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434)
Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.

The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432)
Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.

The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433)
Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.

The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433) has been referred to Chairman Conyers’ Judiciary Committee for action.


Fair Elections is a new and innovative approach to the problem of special interest money in American elections. It combines what works in our current campaign finance system–citizen small donations–with matching public funds to ensure competitive campaigns. And it rejects what doesn’t work: big money from lobbyists and special interest groups seeking access and influence in government. In five states from Arizona to Maine, Fair Elections is ushering in a new and more accountable politics.

Benefits of Fair Elections

1. Open, Competitive Campaigns: Good government, like any other enterprise, requires robust competition among diverse candidates for public office. Fair Elections encourages and enables the most highly qualified candidates based on their demonstrated small donor support. It ensures that voters are given a meaningful choice in leadership and that big money is not a precondition to seeking and holding public office.
2. Strengthens Public Accountability: Under Fair Elections, candidates are accountable to the voters and their conscience alone. Rather than spending countless hours raising money for reelection, politicians are to free attend to the people’s business, for which they were elected. When candidates no longer rely on special interest funds to win public office, decisions are taken on the basis of independent judgment and constituent concerns.
3. Cherishes Political Speech: Under Fair Elections, qualified candidates have the funding they need to make their voices heard. Consistent with the First Amendment, Fair Elections respects the right of independent groups to enter the political debate, while extending speech opportunities to more and diverse voices across the political spectrum.
4. Raises Citizen Participation: Democracy is strengthened when citizens actively engage in the political process. Rather than rely on a tiny fraction of wealthier Americans to fund political campaigns, Fair Elections encourages candidates to build citizen-driven grassroots campaigns and rewards broad-based support, by leveraging small donations with matching public funds.
5. Reduces Wasteful Spending: Responsible stewardship of the nation’s tax dollars requires that politicians are not beholden to special interest groups. In countless documented cases, large contributions have resulted in billions of pork barrel spending and inefficient regulation that is inconsistent with a competitive free market. By replacing special interest contributions with broad-based citizen support and public funding, Fair Elections gives leaders the independence they need to evaluate policy based on merit and public interest alone.

Track Record of Success

Experience with Fair Elections in five states has shown that candidates willingly forego the big money game, and the countless hours it demands, when given the alternative of raising small donations matched with public funds. In Maine, Arizona, Connecticut, North Carolina, and New Mexico, Fair Elections systems are meaningfully changing the way politics is done: more candidates from diverse backgrounds are seeking office; the level of electoral competition has increased; incumbents are spending their time working on issues that matter to voters; and the number of citizen small donors has increased several fold. Today over 75% of Republican and Democratic elected officials in Fair Elections states say no to big money in favor of Fair Elections.

The ABC’s of Fair Elections

Start-up: Candidate Qualifying

Candidates qualify for Fair Elections funding by collecting a large number of small donations from their constituents

Primary: Small Donor Match
Qualified candidates receive competitive level of multiple matching funds on small in-state donations

General: Grant + Small Donations

Nominated candidates receive competitive grants and match on small in-state donations in place of larger private donations

Fair Elections Provisions

1. Candidate Qualifying and Seed Money: Candidates seeking to participate in Fair Elections collect a set number of qualifying contributions of $5-$100 each from their constituents plus a baseline of $50,000 or more in total contributions. Contributions provide seed money to jump-start the candidate’s campaign and are limited to residents of the candidate’s home state.
2. Primary Funding: Qualifying candidates receive a Fair Elections start-up grant to launch their campaign and additional matching funds of $4 for every $1 raised from their constituents in contributions up to $100 each. Matching funds are capped at a competitive spending threshold, consistent with historic spending levels and media market costs. Qualifying candidates may raise additional unmatched contributions up to $100 each on an unlimited basis.
3. General Election Funding: Participating candidates who win their party’s nomination are eligible to receive competitive public matching funds in the general election, supplemented by $4-to-$1 public matching funds on in-state donations of up to $100 each. A competitive spending limit on public funds is observed. Qualifying candidates may raise additional unmatched contributions up to $100 each on an unlimited basis.
4. Discounted Airtime and Public Debates: Participating candidates are eligible to receive discounted media rates for campaign communications in the run-up to the primary and general election campaigns. Media vouchers are also provided to participating nominated candidates for use in the general election. Candidates agree to take part in public debates.
5. Administration and Review: An independent office of the FEC will be charged with administering and updating the program. A five member board of Presidential appointees will lead the office, with four members recommended by House and Senate party leaders and the fifth member by consensus of the original four. Qualifying requirements and funding levels will be subject to review and amendment after each election to ensure viability over time.

Funding Fair Elections

1. Cost Estimate:  The estimated cost of the Fair Elections program for House and Senate elections is $1-$1.5 billion per year, depending on the level of candidate participation.
2. Funding Mechanism: The Senate bill calls for funding from a 0.5% surcharge on government contracts in excess of $10 million. The House bill calls for funding from 10% of the proceeds of broadcast spectrum auctions.

Impact of the Citizens United Ruling

So far we are not aware of any conflict with that ruling since there are no restrictions on fund-raising and participation in the program is voluntary.

Topic: MoveOn’s next campaign is the fight against big corporations and their influence in every aspect of our lives as citizens of the United States.  MoveOn.org looks forward to  collaborating with other groups on this campaign for as long as it takes to eliminate the impact of corporate influence on our Democracy. This forum is Austin MoveOn’s first step towards that end, and it is co-sponsored by Austin MoveOn Council, Austin Coffee Party, Common Cause, Gray Panthers, and Public Citizen.

Where: AFL-CIO HQ, 11th & Lavaca Streets, Downtown

When: Tuesday, May 4th, 6:30 to 9 PM

Speakers: Stewart Snider on Campaign Finance Reform and Lou McCreary on the ramifications of the “Citizens United” vs the FEC decision by our Supreme Court

BREAK OUT SESSIONS:
Changing the rules of our democracy. In order to rein in corporate influence, there are some bad laws–including Supreme Court precedents–that need to be repealed, and some good laws that need to be passed. We’ll discuss which we think are MOST important. These conversations will help our ongoing effort to determine our overall platform, short-term priorities, and possibly a candidate pledge for this fall.

Confronting corporations & corporate politicians that undermine our democracy: In this group, we’ll discuss how we can shame the politicians who are carrying water for corporations, and go after some of the worst-offender companies and front groups that are interfering with our democracy. These conversations will help us prioritize some of our most important campaign strategies and tactics for the coming months.

Building the movement and getting more people involved: This group will discuss how we can raise the visibility of our movement on-line and off-line locally and across the country — for instance, should we hold a giant series of rock concerts, do house meetings with a slide show, or do a massive round of neighborhood outreach? These conversations will help us plan some of our most important organizing strategies and tactics for the coming months.

We’d appreciate it if those attending would sign up using the following link: http://pol.moveon.org/event/2010townhall/102961 This will allow us to prepare for the proper number of attendees. It’s also a pot luck event. Thank you!  If you have questions, please email Bill Hamm: billhmoveon at gmail dot com.