NPR on CU v. FEC

Feingold on Citizens United v. FEC

Senator Feingold, co-author of McCain Feingold act of 2002, speaks out about corporate spending on the senate floor.

Petition to Stop Corporate Takeover of Government

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/grayson_democracy/?rc=fb_share1

The Frightening Reality

It is popular opinion that campaign finance reform is likely necessary, but the courts disagreed. Let's take a look at why they did.

It is argued that limiting the speech of the corporation is impeaching "their" freedom of speech, and by "their" I refer to the corporation. The issue at hand here is corporate person-hood.

What bothers me is that a corporation, though granted all of the freedoms of The Constitution, are not subject to its regulation. Simply put, they receive the rights without concern for their responsibilities. It is easy to allow a corporation to speak, but it marginalizes public voice.

Ideally, I believe it should be the right of the corporation to speak, but in a representative democracy like our own, all speech must be created equal. Our democracy will face dire circumstances when money becomes the main medium for speech, and I fear that it is already becoming so.

It is idyllic to think that corporate power should be allowed for speech, but it is interesting to note that false advertisement laws do not pertain to political speech. I.E: It would be easy for Exxon Mobil to sponsor an oil-drilling candidate and say s/he was "environmentally friendly," without having to face the music of a federal regulator, because political speech is protected.

Getting back to the main point, when money becomes speech, the voice of the meek goes unfunded, in turn, going unnoticed. It is this frightening reality that allows corporate person-hood to control our political system, increasing apathy of constituencies.

The voice of the people is silenced through corporate speech, and surely threatens a representative democracy like our own, especially when our representatives are products of corporate speech in and of themselves.

President Obama Critiques the Citizens United v. FEC Ruling

President Obama took time to address the recent Supreme Court decision,

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."


It is clear that Obama sees error in the decision. This is a calling from our president. We must all write our senators and attempt to overturn this decision. Stand up against corporate speech!

More opnion polling on Citizens United

Before we get into the polling I think there needs to be something said about the S. Court decision and its affects on legislation. In order for campaign finance legislation to become law there must be an accord from both sides of the aisle. The reason for this is that although both parties adhere to their own in house rule, when it comes to campaign finance, both parties must abide by federal legislation. BCRA, or the McCain-Feingold bill, was mainly sponsored by a member of both the parties indicating the importance of bipartisan support. In addition the mere idea of a politician regulating money he/she receives seems like a bad idea to begin with. So when campaign finance legislation is passed into law and the S. Court rules it unconstitutional on the grounds of first amendment violation it sends a message to legislators, either on purposeful or not, that their efforts are illegitimate and pointless.

A September 9, 2009 interview with John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) on the
Supreme Court arguments on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Does anyone believe that the rights of average citizens to be heard in Washington would not be over ridden by massive , unlimited campaign contributions? Corporations and Unions? That is a disconnect from reality! We saw the corruption, and we acted and that's why congress acted. Not in congress's self interest but because it was a demand on the part of the American people for us to act and we did. - McCain

And if they do it strictly on a first amendment ground, not allowing us to legislate, they will disable the Government. The representatives of the people of this country from ever fixing the campaign finance system. That could be the result of this, we could have no ability to change it at all. - Feingold

--Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing
From: Wednesday, February 17, 2010
"Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll...

...Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits..."

How do Americans feel about campaign finance? (Gallup)

How do Americans feel about campaign finance? Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.

Specifically, 61% of Americans think the government should be able to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates and 76% think it should be able to limit the amount corporations or unions can give.

Bottom line, prior to now, while corporations and unions could run issue-based ads, they could not spend a penny on candidates, except through political action committees. Now that they can run such ads, the country could be in store for major changes in the way campaigns are conducted. Does the ruling square with Americans' views on campaign contribution limits? In some respects, yes. In others, it depends on whether Americans decide that independent expenditures are tantamount to political "contributions" or are merely free speech.

Background on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Why is campaign finance reform a big deal? Because organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies to make sure their interests are protected, not those of Americans. Don’t think it’s a big deal? Check this out:

Top 10 Contributors to Political Parties Between 89’-Present
1	ATT&T Corp.	$44,361,209
2	American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees	$42,248,261
3	National Assn of Realtors	$35,733,073
4	Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers	$31,660,630
5	American Assn for Justice	$31,645,679
6	Goldman Sachs	$31,612,375
7	National Education Assn	$30,194,067
8	Laborers Union	$29,132,400
9	Service Employees International Union	$28,134,482
10	Teamsters Union	$28,029,624
Total:		$332,751,800

That was only the top 10. This situation is made worse when taking into account the Supreme Decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (and here.)

The case, which was appealed from the US States District Court for the District of Columbia, arose from a dispute on whether Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, could advertise a video-on-demand movie which was critical of Hillary Clinton in violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA or McCain-Feingold Act). In dispute was an initial order to stop the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from enforcing the conditions of BCRA which would prevent the movie from being shown within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary elections.

In this decision the Supreme Court found that funding independent political broadcasts in elections cannot be limited because of the First Amendment. The ruling, which was a 5-4 decision (split across ideological lines), found that in the case of either for-profit or non-for-profit organizations and unions that BCRA could not prevent a broadcasting of “electioneering communications” (which is a “broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary”).

What does this mean for the American people? Stay tuned!

The History of Campaign Finance Reform

The following is a summary of election finance legislation covering the first federal effort to regulate campaign finance in 1867 under the Naval Appropriations Bill to the 1979 amendment, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) amendment.

1867: Naval Appropriations Bill
The first federal attempt to regulate campaign finance which prohibited officers and employees of the government from soliciting money from naval yard-workers.

1883: Civil Service Reform Act

Extended the above rule to all federal civil service workers · Previously, government workers were expected to make campaign contributions in order to keep their jobs.

1905: Teddy Roosevelt's Message to Congress
President Theodore Roosevelt proposed that "(a)ll contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." The proposal, however, included no restrictions on campaign contributions from the people who owned and ran corporations. Roosevelt also called for public financing of federal candidates via their political parties.

1907: Tillman Act
Prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates · However, weak enforcement mechanisms made the Act unenforceable.

1910: Federal Corrupt Practices Act
Established disclosure requirements for U.S. House candidates · Legislation in 1911 extended requirements to cover U.S. Senate candidates and established expenditure limits for House and Senate campaigns. Lacking mechanisms for verification and enforcement, these measures proved meaningless.

1925: Federal Corrupt Practices Act (Revised)
Codified and revised previous campaign reform legislation regarding expenditure limits and disclosure · Served as basic federal campaign finance law until 1971 · However, with power of enforcement vested in Congress, the Act was routinely ignored.

1940: Hatch Act Amendments
Set limit of $5,000 per year on individual contributions to a federal candidate or political committee (but it didn't prevent contributors from giving that amount to multiple committees, each working for the same candidate) · Made campaign finance regulations applicable to primaries as well as general elections · Barred contributions to federal candidates from individuals and businesses working for the federal government

1943: Smith-Connally Act
Extended to unions the prohibition on contributions to federal candidates from corporations and interstate banks (following major increase, beginning in 1936, in labor's use of union dues to support federal candidates)

1944: Formation of First PAC
First political action committee (PAC) was formed by Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in 1944 to raise money for re-election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Because PAC money came from voluntary contributions from union members, rather than from union treasuries (i.e., union dues), it was not prohibited by the Smith-Connally Act.

1947: Taft-Hartley Act
Made permanent the ban on contributions to federal candidates from unions, corporations, and interstate banks, and extended the prohibition to include primaries as well as general elections

1967: House Campaign Finance Reports Collected for First Time
Former Congressman W. Pat Jennings was first Clerk of the House of Representatives to perform his duty under 1925 Corrupt Practices Act to collect campaign finance reports and to report violators · However, the Justice Department ignored his list of violators.

1971: Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
Repealed Corrupt Practices Act and created comprehensive framework for regulation of federal campaign financing of primaries, runoffs, general elections, and conventions · Required full and timely disclosure · Set ceilings on media advertising · Established limits on contributions from candidates and their families · Permitted unions and corporations to solicit voluntary contributions from members, employees, and stockholders, and allowed union and corporate treasury money to be used for overhead in operating PACs

1971: Revenue Act
Companion legislation to FECA · Created public campaign fund for eligible presidential candidates (starting with 1976 election) through provision of voluntary one-dollar check-off on federal income tax returns · Provided option of $50 tax deduction (for individual filers) for contributions to local, state, or federal candidates (provision eliminated in 1978) or $12.50 tax credit (amount raised to $50 in 1978, provision eliminated in 1986)

1974: FECA Amendments (Post-Watergate)
Provided option of full public financing for presidential general elections, matching funds for presidential primaries, and public funds for presidential nominating conventions · Set spending limits for presidential primaries and general elections, and for House and Senate primaries · Revised (previously unenforced) spending limits for House and Senate general elections · Created individual contribution limit of $1,000 to a candidate per election and PAC contribution limit of $5,000 to a candidate per election (triggering PAC boom of late '70s) · Limited aggregate individual contributions to $25,000 per year · Limited candidates' personal contributions to their own campaigns · Limited independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate to $1,000 per election · Ended 1940 ban on contributions from individuals and groups working on government contracts · Abolished limits on media advertising · Created Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer campaign law, with Congress to appoint four of six commissioners

1976: Buckley v. Valeo
Restrictions in FECA (as amended in 1974) challenged as unconstitutional violations of free speech · Supreme Court upheld disclosure requirements, limits on individual contributions, and voluntary public financing, and affirmed President's authority to appoint all six FEC commissioners · Court struck down, as infringement on free speech, limits on candidate expenditures (unless candidate accepts public financing), limits on contributions by candidates and their families to their own campaigns, and limits on "independent expenditures" (election spending not coordinated with candidates or their committees).

1976: FECA Amendments (following Buckley )
Brought FECA into conformity with Buckley decision · Limited individual contributions to national parties to $20,000 per year, and individual contributions to a PAC to $5,000 per year

1979: FECA Amendments
Increased amount volunteers could contribute in-kind (use of home, food, vehicle) from $500 to $1,000 · Raised threshold for reporting contributions from $100 to $200 · Effectively prohibited FEC from conducting random audits · Allowed state and local parties to promote federal candidates by spending unlimited amounts on campaign materials (signs, bumper stickers, etc.) used by volunteers and on voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.

Thanks to opensecrets.org