"The U.S. Supreme Court decided in the widely condemned Citizens United case that corporations enjoy the legal status of people—so a Florida woman is seeking the hand of a corporation in legal marriage.I'm rolling my eyes.
Sarah “Echo” Steiner of Lake Worth, Florida, will hold a press conference on Saturday, January 22, to announce her search for a suitable corporate spouse, reports the Undernews blog of Sam Smith’s Progressive Review, citing a Facebook press release put out by Steiner.
Citizens United specifically recognized corporate personhood when it comes to political donations, but a host of observers worry that corporate rights are going to continue to creep into realms previously reserved for humans."
Showing posts with label Corporation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporation. Show all posts
Woman protests Citizens United decision by trying to marry a corporation
Politics - Utne Reader:
Citizens United and the Constitutional Rights of Corporations
ProfessorBainbridge.com:
"There's been a (predictable) spate of academic writing lately on the constitutional tights rights of corporations prompted by the controversial Citizens United decision:"
"FEC Seems Headed for Continued Deadlock On Rule Following Citizens United Decision"
Election Law: "
A 143-page draft expected to be supported by the FEC's three Democratic commissioners includes provisions that could require disclosure of all contributors above a threshold level to groups spending money on federal campaigns. The Democratic draft also includes a proposal to restrict campaign spending by companies that have more than a minimum level of ownership or control by foreign nationals.
A rival 91-page draft believed to be backed by the three Republican commissioners excludes the proposals on disclosure and foreign nationals and concentrates more narrowly on eliminating existing regulatory provisions that restrict campaign spending by corporations and unions."
MCCL sues to stop campaign finance disclosures
Minnesota Independent:
"Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, is challenging Minnesota’s campaign disclosure rules that relate to corporations. The group lost a court case in September but has appealed the case in federal appeals court. State Solicitor General Alan Gilbert argued that the group is trying to gut disclosure laws.
MCCL has hired James Bopp, Jr., as the attorney in its appeal. Bopp was the architect behind the Citizens United case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws banning corporations from making independent expenditures in political campaigns was unconstitutional, but that laws requiring disclosure were vital to democracy. Bopp has filed suit against states across the county on behalf of anti-gay, anti-abortion and tea party groups to overturn laws that require disclosure of political spending and reporting of donors.
Bopp argued that the reporting process for corporations who make political expenditures is “burdensome and onerous” and groups that want to spend money in political campaigning should only have to file a one time, one page report. The case was heard on Thursday"
With prison looming, DeLay looks to Citizens United and the Supremes
Reuters:
"“The underlying crime was that corporate money was spent on political races in Texas and that’s not true,” DeGuerin explains to NBC.
“However, the Supreme Court says that corporations have a right to participate in the political process and that’ll be part of our appeal.”
The attorney did not say whether he intends to appeal all the way to the Supremes. It’s also not clear how directly Citizens United would apply to DeLay’s case, since it preserves federal limits on direct contributions to political candidates."
The big political player you've never heard of - Fortune Finance
Fortune Finance:
"Despite the intimate involvement of lobbyists, ALEC officials insist the organization is not a lobbying group, since it doesn't follow lawmakers to try to advance their bills. Instead, ALEC is a charity, a status it justifies because of its educational mission. The designation allows the group to collect tax-deductible contributions, and it eases lawmaker travel to ALEC events. Says Edwin Bender of the National Institute on Money in State Politics: 'Corporations can implement their agendas very effectively using ALEC.'
In the 2009 legislative session, by ALEC's reckoning, state lawmakers introduced 826 bills the group conceived -- 115 of which made it into law. That's quite a record, and it's going to get stronger. One overlooked aspect of the Republican resurgence has been its revolution at the state level. The GOP picked up more than 700 seats in state legislatures and now controls 25 of those bodies outright, from 14 before November."
California budget: How Jerry Brown's budget will affect programs and services
latimes.com:
"In May 2009, voters rejected a two-year extension of the same taxes in a special election called by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Brown wants to ask that they reconsider.
The sales and vehicle taxes would approximately equal the cost of many services that Brown hopes to shift to cities and counties. The money raised from the higher income taxes would preserve $2 billion for schools.
Brown also called for a change in corporate tax law that would generate $942 million for the state, mostly by raising taxes on businesses whose headquarters are outside California. Brown's budget contains no plan to take the business tax hikes to voters.
The governor would also eliminate 'enterprise zone' tax credits, which corporations can use to hire employees in or from blighted areas, saving the state $581 million annually.
If voters rejected the tax increases, Brown said, billions more would have to be cut from the budget."
Campaign finance report takes aim at political slates, LLCs
Baltimore Sun:
"A group of lawmakers and election lawyers called Tuesday for tighter state regulations on giving by political slates and limited-liability corporations, two-oft criticized ways that donors may flood candidates with money."
Major Influence Peddlers Fill Capitol Hill Newspapers With Advertisements on Congress' Inauguration Day
OpenSecrets:
"Nothing says lobbying like splashing your company's name in bright colors across the pages of Capitol Hill's three must-read specialty publications on the first day of a new congressional session.
In all, 13 corporations, unions or special interest groups that lobby the federal government purchased at least one full-page advertisement in today's print editions of Roll Call, The Hill or Politico, an OpenSecrets Blog review of the newspapers indicates. And 10 of these 13 groups spent at least $1 million during the first nine months of 2010 on their federal lobbying efforts."
The incredible shrinking McCain-Feingold act
UPI.com:
"The petition argues 'that 'independent expenditures,' which are the only currently available avenue for a political party's unlimited 'own speech,' do not adequately protect a party's First Amendment right to engage in its own core political speech. And recent judicial decisions' -- an indirect reference to Citizens United -- 'leave political parties -- traditionally favored -- at a disadvantage relative to corporations, unions, trade associations, special interest groups and political action committees ... in their ability to engage in independent expenditures.'
The petition contends the high court should hear the case so that the justices 'may answer the unresolved question and provide a test for determining when a coordinated political party expenditure constitutes the party's 'own speech,' thereby reducing somewhat the disadvantage that political parties now face.'"
Republican PACs hum in advance of 2012 race -- Romney out-raises and spends them all (with chart)
Image via WikipediaUSATODAY.com:"By law, presidential contenders cannot collect money for the race until they establish an exploratory or a presidential fundraising committee.
However, Republicans and Democrats in recent elections have raised money in separate accounts — known as political action committees (PACs) — to build campaign organizations. It is not illegal.
The six have used their PACS to pay for activities such as political consulting, staff and travel that can advance their White House ambitions. They are Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Campaign-finance watchdogs, such as Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center, say the activity skirts the intent of presidential fundraising accounts, which have stricter contribution limits. Individuals can donate up to $10,000 over a two-year election cycle to a federal PAC, but no more than $4,800 to a presidential campaign.
In addition, Barbour and Romney have created fundraising accounts in states that allow their PACs to receive corporate donations. Federal law bars corporations from giving directly to presidential and congressional candidates."
| Haley Barbour | Mike Huckabee | Newt Gingrich | Sarah Palin | Tim Pawlenty | Mitt Romney | |
 | ||||||
| Mississippi governor | Former Arkansas governor | Former House speaker | Former Alaska governor | Minnesota governor | Former Massachusetts governor | |
| ||||||
| Federal PAC | Haley's PAC | Huck PAC | American Solutions PAC | SarahPAC | Freedom First PAC | Free and Strong America PAC |
| ||||||
| Total federal receipts | $1.1 million | $1.8 million | $705,279 | $5.4 million | $3.3 million | $7.4 million |
| ||||||
| Donated to federal candidates and committees | $233,590 | $137,500 | $224,750 | $516,500 | $214,111 | $827,708 |
| ||||||
| Source: CQMoneyLine; Federal Election Commission | ||||||
| ||||||
Huffington Post Opinion: Campaign Finance Disclosure Sunlight Is Needed
Charles Kolb: Huffington Post:
"The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision earlier this year overturned decades of precedent and enabled corporations and labor unions to make unlimited expenditures -- in many cases funded by undisclosed contributions -- to advocate the election or defeat of specific candidates. While these expenditures cannot be coordinated with political campaigns, they can be used in both federal election campaigns as well as campaigns for state judgeships in the nearly 40 states where judicial elections are held. Congressional efforts earlier this year to mandate full disclosure of these 'independent expenditures' and the contributions funding them narrowly failed in Congress.
My conservative friends who welcomed the Citizens United ruling point to the Supreme Court's majority decision that appears to equate the rights of corporations in our democracy with the rights of individual citizens. If you follow this logic, the marketplace for political candidates is no different than the marketplace for any other commodity: both marketplaces should be free from regulatory constraints, and competition should enable the best candidate, or commodity, to flourish."
Opinion: State lawmakers need to address impact of Citizens United
www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital:
"As new congressional leadership prepares to take power in January, the prospects for addressing the impact of Citizens United at the federal level are dim. But there are some legislative measures that state lawmakers of both parties can support that would mitigate the effect of the Supreme Court decision on both state and federal races and ensure that, in the coming years, Maryland's voters are not drowned out by corporate cash.
The first way we can do this is by improving corporate governance to ensure shareholders of corporations are aware of political expenditures. As it stands, corporations are not required to obtain shareholder approval or disclose detailed reporting of political activity. Requiring such approval, or at least disclosure, would raise the level of accountability of CEOs by placing power directly in the hands of their company's shareholders."
Rick Hasen's paper on Citizens United
SSRN;Citizens United and the Illusion of Coherence:
"The self-congratulatory tone of the majority and concurring opinions in last term’s controversial Supreme Court blockbuster, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, extended beyond the trumpeting of an absolutist vision of the First Amendment that allows corporations to spend unlimited sums independently to support or oppose candidates for office. The triumphalism extended to the majority’s view that it had imposed coherence on the unwieldy body of campaign finance jurisprudence by excising an “outlier” 1990 opinion, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had upheld such corporate limits, and parts of a 2003 opinion, McConnell v. FEC, extending Austin to unions and to a broader set of election-related television and radio broadcasts. The majority saw itself as returning the Court to the fountainhead of this jurisprudence, the Court’s 1976 opinion in Buckley v. Valeo."
FEC can't decide if corporations can rent email lists to candidates
Advisory Opinion 2010-30:
"In Advisory Opinion 2010-30 (Citizens United), the Commission could not render an opinion on whether the proposed rental of email lists to federal candidates, authorized committees, political party committees or other political committees for emails soliciting contributions or inviting recipients to fundraisers would constitute a prohibited corporate facilitation of contributions. The Commission did agree, however, that the proposed rental program would not result in either a coordinated expenditure or a coordinated communication. The Commission directed the Office of the General Counsel to redraft the advisory opinion reflecting these conclusions."
So a green light then?
How Citizens United Affects State and Local Government
Local governments can still establish candidate contribution limits and impose robust reporting requirements.
While the predictions of an overwhelming influx of corporate spending and the effectiveness of corporate messaging could not be fully understood until after this year’s midterm election, the impacts of Citizens United nevertheless began to be felt in court decisions, the reactions of regulators, and in the experiences of corporations that have begun to engage the public in this forum heretofore unavailable to them. This article examines how Citizens United has informed later decisions in the Ninth Circuit, the reaction of California state and local regulators, and the experiences of corporations as more visible political players.
The Foolishness of Campaign Finance Reformers
The Atlantic:
"Advocates of campaign finance restrictions, outraged by the Citizens United decision, have proposed a constitutional amendment allowing Congress and the states to regulate political speech 'by any corporate entity.' The breadth of this proposal is, well, breathtaking: it would permit the criminalization of political advocacy (including criticism of political candidates) not just by presumptively big bad corporations, but by non-profit advocacy groups, large and small; and, its intended effect on media corporations is unclear."
Will: First Amendment vs. Arizona Law
Newsweek:
"For the first Amendment and its friends, this has been a fine year. It began with a less-than-momentous but welcome Supreme Court ruling that Barack Obama called “devastating to the public interest.” And last week the court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of a state campaign-finance law patently designed to decrease the amount of political speech Arizonans can hear. Schemes for rationing and suppressing such speech continue to crumble.
During the Jan. 27 State of the Union address, television showed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito murmuring “not true” when Barack Obama told the nation something that was not true. Six days earlier, the court, in the Citizens United case, ruled that because the First Amendment proscribes laws limiting political speech, it proscribes laws that outlaw independent candidate-related advocacy by groups of Americans organized as corporations. The court had held in 2007 that the First Amendment protects issue advocacy by corporations.
The president had to know he was deceiving the nation when he said this “reversed a century of law.”"
FEC filing reveals robust SuperPAC financing in Alaska's Senate race
Alaska Dispatch:
"Alaskans Standing Together has stretched beyond just the state's Native regional corporations. Its latest federal campaign finance report shows $325,000 in donations from three prominent businessmen and GCI and Unicom, both telecommunications companies with extensive networks in rural Alaska.
Alaskans Standing Together, a so-called SuperPAC formed and primarily funded by Alaska's 13 regional corporations, raised more than $1.7 million and spent $1.6 million through Nov. 22, the end of the latest filing period with the Federal Elections Commission. The filing indicated about $84,000 cash left on hand."
Romney and Other 2012 Contenders Lean on State PACs
NYTimes.com:
"The fact that Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is weighing a run for president in 2012, has an active political action committee in Alabama might seem puzzling.
Upon closer inspection, though, Mr. Romney’s interest in Alabama snaps into focus. The state has among the most permissive campaign finance rules in the nation, allowing contributions of unlimited size from individuals and corporations."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)