Why is an amendment
to the Constitution needed?
• On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court (in a 5-
4 strongly divided ...
What is the
Effect of the
Supreme Court ruling?
• The decision in this historic case, known as the Citizens
United v. Fede...
Money is now considered speech and
cannot be regulated by our legislature
in campaign electioneering
• Those with the most...
There has to be a clear distinction between the
inalienable rights of flesh and blood people (for
whom the Constitution wa...
The Citizens United ruling
Treated entities equally as people with extending to them
the inalienable right of free speech....
We, the real flesh and blood people
(for whom the Constitution was written to protect),
lost our Constitutional Sovereignt...
The answer – a Constitutional
Amendment to correct this.
Several amendments have been written. The
amendment HJR29 sponsor...
Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional
Rights]
The rights protected by the Consti...
The goal:
38 states need to ratify an Amendment to
our U.S. Constitution
that only natural people are a person (an entity ...
16 states have passed resolutions and ballot
initiatives for amending the Constitution, indicating
that these states would...
Just how bad is this situation?
Let’s look at
Undisclosed and Unlimited money
• Social Welfare organizations (guise for po...
Not only does Citizens United allow UNLIMITED money via entities (unions,
corporations, and non-profits, the list goes on)...
& 501(c)6 (Trade Associations) are also allowed
UNLIMITED and UNDISCLOSED monies.
A 501(c)6 allows foreign money from Trad...
U.S. law still bans foreign corporations from participating
directly in elections. But after Citizens United, trade
associ...
Trade Associations can give undisclosed, unlimited
corporate donations directly to campaign entities *2
http://www.thenati...
Add this in: A very large percentage of
U.S. corporations are owned by foreign
persons or entities.
• In 2006, USA Today r...
Trade Associations:
No segregated funds
API no longer has to formally segregate its corporate
dollars when seeking to infl...
Other Major Multinational
Trade Associations
API is hardly the only major trade association that
represents foreign corpor...
Bottom line
• A very high percentage of candidates win
who have the most money.
In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won
85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the S...
So, let’s tie this together and dig a little
deeper as to how much power this is:
Unlimited, undisclosed money
including c...
So where does this leave
you and I?
In short – out spent and powerless.
Our elections are
determined by money and
the play...
“Free” Speech is not protected
when it is determined by
how much money you can contribute
to influence a campaign, and
ent...
Compare YOUR power and ENTITY power
“Free” Speech for an individual
is CAPPED at $2,800 for
contribution to campaign and
m...
$$$$$Super PACs$$$$$
SUPER MONEY = SUPER POWER
versus your citizen power
Why are super PACs so controversial?
• Critics who believe money corrupts the political process say the
court rulings and ...
The Citizens United decision
by the Supreme Court
has violated:
•The Sovereignty of the American people over their governm...
Sovereignty (ultimate power)
resides in the people
•We are sovereign over everything the government creates
•All legal fic...
The Amendment would end the
Doctrine that Money is Speech
•In Buckley v Valeo (1976), the Court ruled that money equals
sp...
Buckley usurped Congress’
power to regulate the manner
of elections
•The Constitution is very clear about this. Article I,...
This is not a liberal or conservative issue, this is an
American issue where OUR legislative branch has had
its power to c...
Montana state law
to stop election corruption was
nullified – they appealed to SCOTUS
The case was not heard
•In 2010, by ...
“Just four states place no limits on contributions”,
Quote and info below from
National Conference of State Legislatures
•...
The Supreme Court failed
to fulfill its function
in our constitutional system
•The court’s refusal to explain its decision...
The Citizens United ruling
breaks precedent :
•Stare decisis (“star-ree dee-sigh-sis.”) is a legal principle by which
judg...
Citizens United breaks precedent:
Historical background
Tillman Act of 1907, banned corporations' contributions to politic...
Can money corrupt – has it corrupted
in the past?
The Citizens United Ruling:
• Maintains that entity expenditures cannot corrupt
elected officials, that influence over law...
• Corporations and labor unions still may not use general treasury funds to donate
directly to federal candidates.
• Compa...
Note the ‘appearance of corruption’
in coordinating in these examples.
Graphic source: “In a single office suite in Alexandria, Va., firms hired by “super PACs” share the same space as consulta...
• A million-dollar donation by a foreign-owned corporation
to a Republican super-PAC has raised legal concerns and
opened ...
More freedom of $$$$$ speech
Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national
advisory board for Mr. Obama’s g...
Would they really say,
“Sure, corporations, unions, and trade associations with foreign
members are persons with inalienab...
Informative Links
• http://www.movetoamendjacksoncounty.org/justice-stevens-opinion/
• http://democracyisforpeople.org/sup...
Endnote
• 1
The FEC defines electioneering communications as broadcast, cable, or satellite communications
that a) refer t...
*2 Campaign Entity
A campaign committee is the entity through which
funds are raised, spent and disclosed when
candidates ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Citizens United Is Unconstitutional - Restore Democracy to The People

1,851 views

Published on

Visit http://americansforamendment.org/ for more information.
We are not affiliated with MTA, but, this quote is most applicable from https://movetoamend.org/voters-both-parties-object-supreme-court-activism "We’re fed up with the influence of Big Money in our political system. “If anything can unite Americans across party and ideological lines, it should be the arrogant and unprecedented Supreme Court ruling [Citizens United] that corporations [including unions, associations, and other entities] are “persons” with all the protections and rights of the Constitution. In a case trumped up by the court itself, five activist judges reversed 100 years of precedent to allow unlimited, special-interest money to be spent in our local, state and federal elections. Corporations [and other entities] are now free to spend unlimited money on behalf of a candidate they favor, or against one they wish to silence. No grassroots organization will ever be likely to raise enough money for their candidate to compete on a level playing field. Put simply in a New York Times headline, the story comes down to, “Lobbies’ New Power: Cross Us and Our Cash Will Bury You.” As moderate Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote, “The only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt.”The choice is simple. Will government answer to the people, or serve special interests? Will elections be an opportunity for the people to speak powerfully to their government, or will elections become competitions among corporate powers, unions and giant foundations to serve their own interests? And what if corporate interests are tied to an unfriendly foreign power? It is difficult to imagine how our democracy would be strengthened by a large infusion of cash into our political process from such governments as Russia, China or Saudi Arabia. Most outrage at this attack on democracy focuses on national politics. However, the ruling also nullifies protections against corporate domination of elections in the 23 states, including Colorado, that model their laws on the federal Constitution.”

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,851
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
898
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Citizens United Is Unconstitutional - Restore Democracy to The People

  1. 1. Why is an amendment to the Constitution needed? • On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court (in a 5- 4 strongly divided decision) ruled that • Corporations have a First Amendment free speech right to spend unlimited amounts of money to overtly advocate or denounce candidates for election “vote for Joe” (this includes all entities – associations, non-profits, unions, trade associations with foreign multinational corporation members, etc.).
  2. 2. What is the Effect of the Supreme Court ruling? • The decision in this historic case, known as the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling • Overturned a century of campaign finance law • Stands to deal a devastating blow to the sovereign power of the people over their government • The result is that our elections are up for sale to the highest bidder • Money has become sovereign over our elections, including unlimited, undisclosed foreign money to control our government
  3. 3. Money is now considered speech and cannot be regulated by our legislature in campaign electioneering • Those with the most money can now legally speak unlimitedly (buy unlimited political ads) and drown out those with much lesser money. • Quoting the minority opinion by Justice Stevens "As the appellant’s own arguments show, the Court could have easily limited the breadth of its constitutional holding had it declined to adopt the novel notion that speakers and speech acts must always be treated identically — and always spared expenditures restrictions — in the political realm. Yet the Court nonetheless turns its back on the as-applied review process that has been a staple of campaign finance litigation since Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), and that was affirmed and expanded just two Terms ago in WRTL, 551 U. S. 449. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html • In laymen's terms “Money is Speech”, Justice Stevens is saying above that the majority ruling equates money as speech - that no expenditure restrictions can apply for any reason, and that any speaker (without distinction of natural person or entity can speak unlimitedly). • Electioneering Communications Rules set by the Federal Election Commission
  4. 4. There has to be a clear distinction between the inalienable rights of flesh and blood people (for whom the Constitution was written, and the word person within it intended) and privileges to government created entities. Entities are created legal fictions (such as profit and non profit corporations, trade associations, and unions) and do not have inherent inalienable rights, they have privileges as granted them by law (laws made by the people). Under Citizens United, entities now are treated as flesh and blood people by giving them the inalienable RIGHT of free speech where money is now considered speech regarding campaign electioneering. It’s a matter of who rules ultimately over who and why.
  5. 5. The Citizens United ruling Treated entities equally as people with extending to them the inalienable right of free speech. The ruling at same time declared that money is first amendment protected free speech and therefore can not be regulated by OUR federal or state legislatures in campaign electioneering.
  6. 6. We, the real flesh and blood people (for whom the Constitution was written to protect), lost our Constitutional Sovereignty as the government over entities. And we lost control over our elections because this ruling allows those with the most money (including foreign money) the ability to buy them. The consequence is:
  7. 7. The answer – a Constitutional Amendment to correct this. Several amendments have been written. The amendment HJR29 sponsored by Rep. Rick Nolan (D-MN) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) is the one that addresses both issues of personhood and that money is not speech.
  8. 8. Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights] The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable. Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech] Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment. House Joint Resolution 29 introduced February 14, 2013
  9. 9. The goal: 38 states need to ratify an Amendment to our U.S. Constitution that only natural people are a person (an entity is not a person with inalienable rights), and that Money is NOT first amendment protected free speech.
  10. 10. 16 states have passed resolutions and ballot initiatives for amending the Constitution, indicating that these states would most likely ratify (for ratification, 38 are needed) Oregon – July 2013 Delaware – June 2013 Illinois – May 2013 Maine - April 2013 West Virginia - April 2013 Colorado - November 2012 Montana - November 2012 New Jersey - October 2012 Connecticut - September 2012 Massachussetts - July 2012 California - July 2012 Rhode Island - May 2012 Maryland - April 2012 Vermont - April 2012 New Mexico - January 2012 Hawaii - April 2010
  11. 11. Just how bad is this situation? Let’s look at Undisclosed and Unlimited money • Social Welfare organizations (guise for political agendas) •The power of foreign money via trade associations • Just how powerful money is in elections
  12. 12. Not only does Citizens United allow UNLIMITED money via entities (unions, corporations, and non-profits, the list goes on). It allows 501(c)4 (Social Welfare organizations) UNLIMITED and UNDISCLOSED monies. Social Welfare organizations aren’t supposed to be political as their primary objective.
  13. 13. & 501(c)6 (Trade Associations) are also allowed UNLIMITED and UNDISCLOSED monies. A 501(c)6 allows foreign money from Trade Associations (these are not segregated funds, their multinational foreign members pay in their members dues and other general fund money that can then be used by their directors for American campaign electioneering advocacy – TV ads “vote for Joe” ).
  14. 14. U.S. law still bans foreign corporations from participating directly in elections. But after Citizens United, trade associations like API (American Petroleum Institute) — whose influential members include foreign corporations —are free to spend as much as they wish from their general treasury, unburdened by any disclosure requirements. And these groups have taken full advantage of their new freedoms. While other campaign committees, from labor unions to corporate Super PACs, face strict transparency rules, trade associations enjoy unparalleled power to covertly manipulate elections using corporate money. http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business-buying-election#
  15. 15. Trade Associations can give undisclosed, unlimited corporate donations directly to campaign entities *2 http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business-buying-election# • Among the oil executives leading API at the time—and still to this day [9/17/2012) —was Tofiq Al-Gabsani, a registered lobbyist for the Saudi government. Al-Gabsani is the chief executive of Saudi Refining Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, the government-owned Saudi oil giant better known as Aramco. • Aramco, by means of its US subsidiary, is understood by insiders to be one of the top donors to API, where, according to theWashington Post, membership dues for the largest firms can be as much as $20 million a year. API has roughly 400 member firms, but only a small group of oil and gas industry CEOs sit on its board of directors, which oversees the trade association’s major political campaigns, according to API state business filings and two former API executives. Alongside the top officials of such major American firms as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, one of those directors for the past three years has been Al-Gabsani.
  16. 16. Add this in: A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. • In 2006, USA Today reported: "Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies also have a sizable presence in running power plants, chemical factories and water treatment facilities in the United States." It was also reported that, "Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off , and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying." In 2008, it was reported that foreign ownership of U.S. companies "more than doubled" between 1996 and 2005. To get a fix on the spending power, consider this: "The total receipts of foreign-owned companies were $1.7 trillion in 1996 and just $39 billion in 1971."
  17. 17. Trade Associations: No segregated funds API no longer has to formally segregate its corporate dollars when seeking to influence federal elections, allowing companies like Aramco [a member of API and owned by the Saudi government] to pour money into campaign ads without detection. Federal law prevents Saudi lobbyist Al-Gabsani, as a foreign national, from leading a political action committee. But there’s nothing stopping him from leading a trade group that makes campaign expenditures just as a PAC would. http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business
  18. 18. Other Major Multinational Trade Associations API is hardly the only major trade association that represents foreign corporations. SABIC, the Saudi government–owned chemical company that ranks among the world’s largest, is a dues-paying member of the American Chemistry Council, another 501(c)(6) that has taken advantage of the new system. The council, like API, represents large American-based firms, such as DuPont and Dow Chemical, as well as multinationals like Solvay SA, a Belgian chemical concern, and Daikin Industries, a Japanese company. http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business-buying-e
  19. 19. Bottom line • A very high percentage of candidates win who have the most money.
  20. 20. In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The center found that in 2008, the biggest spenders won 93 percent of House races and 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, the top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occupy-wall-street/occupy-wall-stree $$$$ Money wins elections $$$$
  21. 21. So, let’s tie this together and dig a little deeper as to how much power this is: Unlimited, undisclosed money including covert money (undisclosed) by foreign powers for use in overt campaign electioneering (tons of TV ads that can say anything they want).
  22. 22. So where does this leave you and I? In short – out spent and powerless. Our elections are determined by money and the playing field is rigged as to who (or what) controls the government.
  23. 23. “Free” Speech is not protected when it is determined by how much money you can contribute to influence a campaign, and entities are declared to be ‘people’ with the same inalienable rights power to rule the government – the people lose their power, their sovereignty, and are the ruled.
  24. 24. Compare YOUR power and ENTITY power “Free” Speech for an individual is CAPPED at $2,800 for contribution to campaign and must be DISCLOSED “Free” Speech contribution to super PAC (political action campaign) by entity or individual is UNLIMITED. Trade associations and Social Welfare organizations unlimited and UNDISCLOSED.
  25. 25. $$$$$Super PACs$$$$$ SUPER MONEY = SUPER POWER versus your citizen power
  26. 26. Why are super PACs so controversial? • Critics who believe money corrupts the political process say the court rulings and creation of super PACs opened the floodgates to widespread corruption. In 2012, U.S. Sen. John McCain warned: "I guarantee there will be a scandal, there is too much money washing around politics, and it’s making the campaigns irrelevant." • McCain and other critics said the rulings allowed wealthy corporations and unions to have an unfair advantage in electing candidates to federal office. • In writing his dissenting opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens opined of the majority: "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus 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 distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt."
  27. 27. The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court has violated: •The Sovereignty of the American people over their government •The Constitution •First Amendment rights given to entities •Nowhere in the Constitution does it declare that money is speech or that entities (corporations, unions, non-profits) are people •Takes away Congress’ right to regulate elections granted under Art. 1 Sect. 4 •States rights - overruled without explanation •Precedents of historical court rulings that made a distinction between the Constitutional inalienable rights of people and legal fictions
  28. 28. Sovereignty (ultimate power) resides in the people •We are sovereign over everything the government creates •All legal fictions are creations of government. • If the creation is given power over the creator, then sovereignty is lost. •A person has INALIENABLE rights (they are not given) •The American people are sovereign over the government, not the other way around.
  29. 29. The Amendment would end the Doctrine that Money is Speech •In Buckley v Valeo (1976), the Court ruled that money equals speech. The corollary is this: people, who have money can speak, and people who don’t, can’t. This is how a plutocracy is defined, not a Constitutional Republic where the people democratically elect THEIR representatives (not ones who are bought for them to decide A or B – the lesser of two evils). •Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that money is a form of speech. The assertion that money is speech is legislating from the bench (and a violation of separation of powers). (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) struck down limits on independent expenditures as unconstitutional) http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2012/07/01/why-principled-conservat
  30. 30. Buckley usurped Congress’ power to regulate the manner of elections •The Constitution is very clear about this. Article I, Section IV states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.” •Both Buckley and Citizens United are fundamentally un-Constitutional decisions and represent a power-grab by the Supreme Court. http://www.amendmentgazette.com/how-spending-money-became-a-form-o The power of the people to govern lies in their Constitution and in their legislature – both have been usurped by the Supreme Court and the power given to entities (including foreign) and money.
  31. 31. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, this is an American issue where OUR legislative branch has had its power to control elections taken away. The Supreme Court majority usurped this power by the Citizens United ruling. Our legislative power was taken away.
  32. 32. Montana state law to stop election corruption was nullified – they appealed to SCOTUS The case was not heard •In 2010, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court led that states cannot have their own campaign finance laws, and that all 50 states must abide by 2010 s Citizens′ United ruling. •More than 20 states’ attorneys general (including the District of Columbia’s) urged the court to uphold the Montana law, arguing that corporate and union expenditures lead to corruption.
  33. 33. “Just four states place no limits on contributions”, Quote and info below from National Conference of State Legislatures • Campaign Finance Reform: An Overview • Updated October 3, 2011 • Why states regulate money in elections • A successful election campaign depends on communication, and communication costs money. However, it is believed by some that money has the potential to corrupt a candidate, to drive him or her to serve their own interests or the interests of their campaign donors rather than the public good. For instance, there is a belief that an unusually large financial contribution could influence the voting behavior of an elected official. Campaign finance laws are intended to reduce the potential for corruption, or even the appearance of corruption. • How states regulate money in elections • There are three main avenues for regulating campaign finance. Few states rely on just one; most utilize a combination of two or three. These three primary methods are disclosure, contribution limits, and public financing. • http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/campaign-finance-an- overview.aspx
  34. 34. The Supreme Court failed to fulfill its function in our constitutional system •The court’s refusal to explain its decision on Montana’s law creates greater uncertainty for lower courts, state legislatures and those who run political campaigns, and it will invite many more challenges to other states’ campaign finance laws. •One of the most important jobs of the U.S. Supreme Court is to create clarity, certainty and predictability regarding the meaning of the law. The public needs to know what acts are legal and illegal, and why. •The court often is the chief expositor of the U.S. Constitution. If the court fails to explain its decisions, then it fails to fulfill its function in our constitutional system.
  35. 35. The Citizens United ruling breaks precedent : •Stare decisis (“star-ree dee-sigh-sis.”) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.
  36. 36. Citizens United breaks precedent: Historical background Tillman Act of 1907, banned corporations' contributions to political parties or candidates for any federal election campaigns Taft Hartley Act of 1947, banned expenditures by corporations and unions in connection with general and primary federal elections Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 put limits on expenditures in campaigns Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) upheld a Michigan law that prohibited corporations but not unions from using funds for individual expenditures Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, prohibited "electioneering communication" by corporations unless from a segregated PAC fund McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) upheld Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 regulation of "electioneering communication"
  37. 37. Can money corrupt – has it corrupted in the past?
  38. 38. The Citizens United Ruling: • Maintains that entity expenditures cannot corrupt elected officials, that influence over lawmakers is not corruption, and that the appearance of influence will not undermine public faith in our democracy. • i.e, allows politicians to be bought by the highest bidder. • By establishing that money is speech, it replaces our Constitutional Republic by a plutocracy – those (including entities) with the most money buy and rule our government via control of campaign electioneering, especially media influence (TV ads).
  39. 39. • Corporations and labor unions still may not use general treasury funds to donate directly to federal candidates. • Companies also may not coordinate the funding of election advertisements in cooperation, consultation, or in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, the candidate’s campaign, the candidate’s agent, or a political party committee. • Companies cannot engage in discussions with a candidate or campaign concerning an advertisement’s content, message, intended audience, method of communication, intended media outlets, timing, placement, frequency, size, or prominence. • Corporations cannot use a candidate or campaign’s vendor or consultant, and should not employ former campaign staff to avoid appearances of impropriety. • http://www.mintz.com/newsletter/2010/Advisories/0078-0110-DC-COM/web.html The Law – Is it being enforced?
  40. 40. Note the ‘appearance of corruption’ in coordinating in these examples.
  41. 41. Graphic source: “In a single office suite in Alexandria, Va., firms hired by “super PACs” share the same space as consultants hired by the Romney campaign. Federal law prohibits super PACs from directly coordinating with candidates, but the groups share many ties and have paid for many similar services…” continue reading Fine Line Between ‘Super PACs’ and Campaigns. Sent by newsletter@teapartypatriots.org http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/28/the-incestuous-bleeding-of-the-republican-party/ Posted in article by Redstate.com which is conservative.
  42. 42. • A million-dollar donation by a foreign-owned corporation to a Republican super-PAC has raised legal concerns and opened up the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision to new criticism. • Restore Our Future, the super-PAC supporting Republican Mitt Romney's run for president, received a $1 million donation in mid-August from reinsurance company OdysseyRe of Connecticut, a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of Canadian insurance and investment management giant Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited. • http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/canadia n-foreign-donation-super-pac-restore-our-future Both ‘sides’ have appearances of impropriety
  43. 43. More freedom of $$$$$ speech Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships. http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/27/buying-access-in-obamas-washington/ Top Obama fundraiser Bruce Heyman, a former Goldman Sachs partner, named U.S. ambassador to Canada http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/04/top-obama-fundraiser-a-former- goldman-sachs-partner-named-u-s-ambassador-to-canada-report/ Both ‘sides’ have appearances of impropriety
  44. 44. Would they really say, “Sure, corporations, unions, and trade associations with foreign members are persons with inalienable rights – and money is speech in elections – can’t regulate it (cancel Article 1, section 4). That’s what we really meant in the Constitution ”? No, it’s time to protect OUR sovereignty – the people are the government
  45. 45. Informative Links • http://www.movetoamendjacksoncounty.org/justice-stevens-opinion/ • http://democracyisforpeople.org/supreme-court-ruling.php • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commissio n • http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big- business-buying-election# • http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big- business-buying-election?page=0,2 Loophole Allows Saudi Arabian Businesses to Spend Freely in Our Election • http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml • http://uspolitics.about.com/od/firstamendment/a/What-Is-A-Super-Pac.htm • http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/01/19/us/politics/0120-scotus- campaign.html • http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2012/07/01/why-principled- conservatives-should-support-an-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/
  46. 46. Endnote • 1 The FEC defines electioneering communications as broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that a) refer to a clearly identified federal candidate; 2) are publicly distributed by a television station, radio station, cable television system, or satellite system for a fee, 3) can reasonably be received by 50,000 or more people in the district (in the case of a U.S. House candidate) or state (in the case of a Senate candidate) that the candidate seeks to represent; and 4) are distributed within 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary election for the federal office sought by the candidate, including elections in which the candidate is unopposed. The following are not considered electioneering communications: 1) printed media - including newspapers, magazines, bumper stickers, yard signs, and billboards; 2) telephone or electronic communications (however, the exemption does not apply to unsolicited electronic mail of more than 500 substantially similar communications); 3) a news story, commentary, or editorial broadcast by a television station, radio station, cable television system or satellite system (however, if the facilities are owned or controlled by a political party, committee, or candidate, other regulations apply); 4) a candidate debate, forum, or communication that solely promotes a debate or forum (communications promoting the debate or forum must be made by or on behalf of the sponsor), and 5) communications by state or local candidates that do not promote, support, attack or oppose federal candidates. http://www.mintz.com/newsletter/2010/Advisories/0078-0110-DC- COM/web.html
  47. 47. *2 Campaign Entity A campaign committee is the entity through which funds are raised, spent and disclosed when candidates run for office. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/candidates/CFGuide/chapters/2010CFguide_Ch1.pdf

×