Tag Archives: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

SCOTUS …. still at work


Supreme_Court_US_2009

This week at the Court

By on Oct 6, 2013 at 12:03 am

Monday is the first day of the 2013 Term. We expect orders – primarily cert.  denials from the September 30 Conference – at 9:30 a.m.

The Justices will hear two oral arguments each day, Monday through Wednesday.

The hearing list for the October sitting is here.

On Friday the Justices will meet for their October 11 Conference.

Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be available soon.

Argument preview: Campaign finance — again

****************************************************************************

By on Oct 5, 2013 at 12:11 am

At 10 a.m. Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the latest constitutional dispute over campaign finance — this time, the constitutionality of federal ceilings on donations to political candidates or parties.  In the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, arguing for Alabama Republican donor Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee will be Erin E. Murphy of the Washington law firm of Bancroft PLLC, with twenty minutes of time.  Arguing for Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky — in the case as an amicus — will be Bobby R. Burchfield of the Washington law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, with ten minutes.  Representing the FEC, with thirty minutes, will be U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

It has been nearly four years since the Supreme Court set off a constitutional revolution in the financing of federal elections, in Citizens United v. FEC, and the controversy it stirred up still has not lost its fury.  The Court, however, is ready to consider extending that revolution by, perhaps, casting aside a constitutional formula it has used repeatedly in this field for more than four decades to curb campaign donations.

The formula, put simply, is that those who contribute money to candidates or political committees get less protection for their activity than those who spend money directly to try to influence election outcomes.   The Court is being asked to give donors the same full protection that spenders get under the First Amendment.  In short, the Justices have a chance to reexamine the core of the landmark 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.

Continue reading »

Overturn Citizen’s United


Union of Concerned Scientists
In 2012, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. This decision, coupled with loopholes in current law, means that currently there’s essentially no requirement that corporations report their unlimited political spending. This allows them to anonymously confuse the public on science and delay action on critical public health and environmental protections.
Right now, our friends at Public Citizen are working to overturn this ruling, and they need your help. Sign Public Citizen’s petition calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission today. Here at the Union of Concerned Scientists, collaboration is a guiding principle. We partner with many of the nation’s leading scientists, unions, public interest and environmental organizations, and decision-makers in government to achieve our common goal: a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world. Today we’re partnering with Public Citizen to encourage you to fight back against efforts to undermine our democratic system.
Don’t let special interests inappropriately influence public policy and pollute the national dialogue on scientific issues like climate change and energy production—sign the petition today.
Sincerely, MichaelHalpern_jpg Michael Halpern National Field Organizer UCS Center for Science and Democracy

Tell Clarence Thomas to Recuse himself!


Nearly 25,000 people have already signed on to this action, giving it an incredible start. Help us keep it going.

Be part of the growing number of Americans demanding that Justice Thomas acknowledge the conflict of interest presented by his family’s professional, paid involvement in efforts to fight and now repeal a law that could soon come before the Supreme Court.

Tell Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from future Supreme Court cases involving the health care reform law.>>       www.pfaw.org

Thank you for your support and your activism.

— Ben

———————————————–

Original Message:

Dear People For Supporter,

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, already in hot water over failing to report his wife’s income on judicial disclosure forms, is now being called on by 74 members of Congress, led by Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York, to recuse himself from hearing cases on the health care reform law.

It’s really pretty simple. Justice Thomas’ wife Ginni has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars working for and leading groups that have repealing health care reform as one of their chief goals. And considering challenges to the health car law are expected to make it to the Supreme Court, how could that not be a major conflict of interest?

Rep. Weiner and his colleagues are absolutely correct that Justice Thomas should recuse himself.

Click here to sign on to their letter to Justice Thomas and we’ll deliver the names to Rep. Weiner.   >> www.pfaw.org

Challenges to the health care reform law have been largely unsuccessful, but two judges have ruled at least one part of the bill unconstitutional, making it very likely that the challenge will make its way to the Supreme Court.

The court challenges to health care reform are really more political than legal, and the tortured logic used by the judges who have ruled it unconstitutional ignores the text and history of our Constitution, as well as firmly established case law going back to the Supreme Court of the early 1800s. Despite right-wing Supreme Court justices’ willingness to contort the law to suit their ideology – see the their controversial decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United v. FEC, both of which had Justice Thomas in the majority – most legal experts agree that the health care reform law is perfectly constitutional and under no real threat of being ruled otherwise. But outcomes aside, the Thomas family’s profits from efforts to repeal health care reform clearly mean that Justice Thomas should not hear and decide cases about that law.

Ginni Thomas is now a lobbyist, advertising herself to potential clients interested in health care reform as someone with the “experience and connections” to get the job done. Justice Clarence Thomas should honor his office by acknowledge this obvious conflict of interest and recusing himself.

Don’t wait another minute to speak up — add your name to Rep. Weiner’s letter now. www.pfaw.org

— Ben Betz, Online Communications Manager

Here’s the text of the letter:

Dear Justice Thomas:

As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.

The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of health care reform is blurred. Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has “experience and connections and appeals to clients who want a particular decision — they want to overturn health care reform. Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas‘s receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of health care reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern.

This is not the first case where your impartiality was in question. As Common Cause points out, you participated in secretive political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the [5-4] decision on the Citizens United case. Your spouse also received an undisclosed salary paid for by undisclosed donors as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that stood to benefit from the decision and played an active role in the 2010 elections.

Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household’s financial gain through your spouse’s activities and your role as a Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We urge you to recuse yourself from this case. If the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, this is the only correct path.

We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

ANTHONY D. WEINER

Call your Member of Congress

——————————————————————————–

Tomorrow’s sad anniversary & your chance to speak out


Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of when the conservative majority in the Supreme Court, by a single vote, staged a hostile takeover of American democracy on behalf of corporations.

Citizens United v. FEC reversed more than 100 years of settled law and gave corporations the same First Amendment rights as people, saying they could spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. The day that decision was released, PFAW launched a campaign to undo the Roberts Court‘s attack on democracy by amending the U.S. Constitution to ensure that Congress has the authority to limit the influence of corporations in elections.

Americans will join together tomorrow to mark the anniversary by standing up for democracy in events in Washington, DC and around the country. PFAW will be joining with many of our friends to drop off hundreds of thousands of petition signatures to members of Congress calling on them to pass a bill to amend the Constitution.

Please make sure your signature is counted by joining our petition now.

Legal experts, members of Congress and many organizations and regular citizens are recognizing the need to counteract the Supreme Court’s devastating overhaul of laws that protect the core of our democratic system. We support legislative efforts to mitigate the damage of the Court’s decision. But a Constitutional amendment is the most complete solution to the danger of unlimited corporate spending in elections.

People For the American Way has spent many years fighting against destructive amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Right Wing around issues like flag burning, school prayer and banning gay marriage, so our decision to support an amendment to the Constitution was not taken lightly. We understand that the fight will be long, and it’s an uphill battle, but with a strong grassroots movement behind it, it’s an effort that can succeed.

Join the movement to take back our democracy from corporate special interests by signing the petition now.

Alternatives like public financing are important, but no matter how many tax payer dollars the government uses to try to offset corporate influence it will never be enough to compete with the bottomless coffers of corporations. For this reason and many more, we must amend the Constitution.

— Diallo Brooks, Director of Field Mobilization

P.S. There are grassroots events going on around the country tomorrow and this weekend to commemorate the anniversary of Citizens United.

PPS. Watch the brand new video about the Citizens United decision … click on the link below

 http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=eVmXspEJtQeDtN_dKqq6Uw..

Take Back Democracy on Citizens United Anniversary


Last year, the five-justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court decided to reaffirm its inclination to rule on behalf powerful corporate interests by giving corporations a gift that was not theirs to give: the People’s democracy.

January 21 will mark the one-year anniversary of the Citizens United v. FEC decision, which reinterpreted the Constitution to give corporations the same First Amendment rights as people and opened the floodgates of limitless, undisclosed spending by corporations and their shadowy front groups to influence elections.

PFAW‘s marking the anniversary by joining with our friends at the Coffee Party, Public Citizen, MoveOn and others to hold a weekend of events in Washington and promote citizen-organized local events around the country.

Please be a part of next week’s grassroots actions to take our democracy back for the People.

Find a local event near you here:

http://www.movementforthepeople.org/get-involved/organize-locally/distributed-events/find-an-event/

If you know of an event that is not on this list, please add it or contact Sergio Lopez at slopez@pfaw.org.

If there is not an event near you, and you think you can organize or hold something yourself (anything from a street protest or a small rally to a house party or a town hall-style meeting at a public venue), also please contact Sergio at slopez@pfaw.org for help doing that.

After the D.C. rally on January 21, we’ll be joining with our allies to deliver hundreds of thousands of petition signatures to Congress calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Roberts Court‘s disastrous decision by giving lawmakers explicit authority to limit corporate spending in elections.

If you have not yet had a chance to join our petition, please do so now.

And ask others to join at http://www.pfaw.org/Amend.

Thank you for your activism to reel in the corrupting influence of unlimited corporate spending, and to take our democracy back for We the People.

— Diallo Brooks, Director of Field and Mobilization