Citizens United Is Unconstitutional - Restore Democracy to The PeopleLinda Sturgeon
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.”
Effects of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissions_maccoll
The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling in 2010 led to a significant rise in outside spending by loosening restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions. Outside spending increased 338% since 2006 due to Citizens United allowing increased spending by super PACs and 501c non-profits. In 2010, 67% of independent expenditures came from 501c groups enabled by Citizens United, and spending by groups not disclosing donors rose to 47% of outside spending.
The document summarizes the history of corporate personhood in the United States, including key Supreme Court cases. It discusses how the 1886 Santa Clara County ruling established that corporations have rights as persons, and how the 2010 Citizens United decision found that restricting corporate political spending violates free speech rights. The decision is controversial as critics argue unlimited corporate money in elections undermines democracy, while supporters see it as protecting free speech. Proposals to reverse the decision include a constitutional amendment or campaign finance reform.
This document provides background on publicly financed political campaigns in the United States. It discusses the history of campaign finance laws and Supreme Court cases that have impacted this issue. Specifically, it outlines the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 which established disclosure requirements and contribution limits, and how the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo challenged aspects of this act and established that political donations are a form of protected political speech. The document argues that while limiting donations is no longer viable, incentivizing small donations from regular citizens could help counter large donations from corporations and wealthy donors.
Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Decisionhallowedblasphe76
The Supreme Court struck down overall limits on campaign contributions, changing the role of money in politics. Reaction was mixed, with Republicans supporting the decision as a free speech issue, while Democrats warned it would increase the influence of wealthy donors. Critics said it could lead to evasion of individual contribution limits and a "pay-to-play" system in Washington.
The document summarizes New Jersey's new "mini-card check" law, which allows unions to be recognized solely based on signed authorization cards from employees rather than requiring a formal election. It notes that while the law aims to make it easier for unions to organize, it faces legal challenges. Specifically, the law is of questionable constitutionality since it denies employers their right to campaign against unionization. Additionally, the law's applicability to private employers is uncertain since federal labor law preempts state laws in many cases. The legality and scope of the mini-card check law will likely be challenged and decided in court.
Speech to Lincoln MA Town Meeting March 24, 2012 in support of constitutional amendment to eliminate the right of corporations to the rights in the Constitution that belong to "the people."
Corporations, Module II: Policy, Lesson 3: Political ActionDuquesne University
Many laws have been passed over the years limiting the ability of corporations to participate in politics, but recent Supreme Court decisions have struck down many such laws. Corporations now enjoy new power to directly contribute to political campaigns. But has this changed politics? And, if so, for better or worse?
Citizens United Is Unconstitutional - Restore Democracy to The PeopleLinda Sturgeon
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.”
Effects of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissions_maccoll
The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling in 2010 led to a significant rise in outside spending by loosening restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions. Outside spending increased 338% since 2006 due to Citizens United allowing increased spending by super PACs and 501c non-profits. In 2010, 67% of independent expenditures came from 501c groups enabled by Citizens United, and spending by groups not disclosing donors rose to 47% of outside spending.
The document summarizes the history of corporate personhood in the United States, including key Supreme Court cases. It discusses how the 1886 Santa Clara County ruling established that corporations have rights as persons, and how the 2010 Citizens United decision found that restricting corporate political spending violates free speech rights. The decision is controversial as critics argue unlimited corporate money in elections undermines democracy, while supporters see it as protecting free speech. Proposals to reverse the decision include a constitutional amendment or campaign finance reform.
This document provides background on publicly financed political campaigns in the United States. It discusses the history of campaign finance laws and Supreme Court cases that have impacted this issue. Specifically, it outlines the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 which established disclosure requirements and contribution limits, and how the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo challenged aspects of this act and established that political donations are a form of protected political speech. The document argues that while limiting donations is no longer viable, incentivizing small donations from regular citizens could help counter large donations from corporations and wealthy donors.
Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Decisionhallowedblasphe76
The Supreme Court struck down overall limits on campaign contributions, changing the role of money in politics. Reaction was mixed, with Republicans supporting the decision as a free speech issue, while Democrats warned it would increase the influence of wealthy donors. Critics said it could lead to evasion of individual contribution limits and a "pay-to-play" system in Washington.
The document summarizes New Jersey's new "mini-card check" law, which allows unions to be recognized solely based on signed authorization cards from employees rather than requiring a formal election. It notes that while the law aims to make it easier for unions to organize, it faces legal challenges. Specifically, the law is of questionable constitutionality since it denies employers their right to campaign against unionization. Additionally, the law's applicability to private employers is uncertain since federal labor law preempts state laws in many cases. The legality and scope of the mini-card check law will likely be challenged and decided in court.
Speech to Lincoln MA Town Meeting March 24, 2012 in support of constitutional amendment to eliminate the right of corporations to the rights in the Constitution that belong to "the people."
Corporations, Module II: Policy, Lesson 3: Political ActionDuquesne University
Many laws have been passed over the years limiting the ability of corporations to participate in politics, but recent Supreme Court decisions have struck down many such laws. Corporations now enjoy new power to directly contribute to political campaigns. But has this changed politics? And, if so, for better or worse?
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Citizens United v. FEC dealing with campaign finance regulation. The conservative group Citizens United wanted to air a film about Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign, which would have violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The Court ruled 5-4 that the section of the Act prohibiting corporate and union independent political expenditures violated the First Amendment. The ruling overturned precedents that had allowed increased regulation of campaign spending by corporations, finding that political speech cannot be restricted based on the speaker. It did not affect bans on direct candidate donations by corporations.
This document provides an introduction and background on campaign finance law and regulation in the United States. It discusses key Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance from Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 to Citizens United v. FEC in 2010. Scholars are divided on whether Citizens United represented a break from precedent or was consistent with previous rulings. The author argues that FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. in 2007 established the framework that Citizens United built upon, not representing a true break from precedent. The document aims to examine these court rulings in detail to determine how and why campaign finance regulation changed over time.
What the new UK Bribery Act 2010 means for US companiesMatt Stone
The UK Bribery Act 2010 introduces new bribery offenses that apply to any company doing business in the UK. The Act establishes a strict liability offense of failing to prevent bribery by persons associated with a company. This means US companies with UK ties can be prosecuted under UK law for corrupt acts anywhere in the world. Compared to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Bribery Act is broader in scope and lacks exemptions for small facilitation payments. To avoid UK criminal liability, US companies must implement adequate anti-bribery procedures for their staff and service providers worldwide.
Applying ''Citizens United'' to the States LawCrossing
Attorney General for Montana, has been critical of the Citizens United ruling. His office stated that it couldn't comment until it received a copy of the lawsuit.
This document outlines El Paso Corporation's political accountability policy. The policy has four main purposes: 1) to encourage the development of sound public policy, 2) to summarize laws regarding political activities, 3) to specify internal compliance procedures, and 4) to ensure disclosure and accountability to shareholders. It discusses laws around political contributions and lobbying, guidelines for corporate and PAC contributions, rules around employee political activities, and oversight of the company's political activities.
This paper reports results from an experiment studying how fines, leniency programs and reward schemes for whistleblowers affect cartel formation and prices. Antitrust without leniency reduces cartel formation, but increases cartel prices: subjects use costly fines as (altruistic) punishments. Leniency further increases deterrence, but stabilizes surviving cartels: subjects appear to anticipate harsher times after defections as leniency reduces recidivism and lowers post-conviction prices. With rewards, cartels are reported systematically and prices finally fall. If a ringleader is excluded from leniency, deterrence is unaffected but prices grow. Differences between treatments in Stockholm and Rome suggest culture may affect optimal law enforcement.
Since coming into office two years ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping has carried out a sweeping, highly publicized anticorruption campaign. Skeptics are debating whether the campaign is biased towards Mr. Xi’s rivals, and even possibly related to the current economic slowdown. What is less debated is the next stage of Mr. Xi’s anti-corruption strategy, which is going to alter the legal statutes. Amendment IX, proposed in October 2014, includes heavier penalties, but two important tools in the fight of corruption – one-sided leniency and asymmetric punishment – became more limited and discretional. We argue that studying a 1997 reform and its effects can shed some light onto why the Chinese leadership seems dissatisfied with the current legislation and the likely effects of the proposed changes.
Tony Fiore, attorney at Kegler Brown and director of government affairs for the Ohio State Council of SHRM, moderated "Hazed and Confused" at the 2015 Ohio SHRM Employment Law + Legislative Conference on June 3, 2015.
The presentation examined the impact of marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington and Ohio's proposed ballot initiatives. Additional speakers included Kelley Duke from Ireland Stapleton Pryor & Pascoe (Denver, CO) and Cliff Webster from Carney, Badley, Spellman (Seattle, WA).
This document summarizes Gor Sargsyan's research on the influence of political partisanship on tax rates in Vermont. Sargsyan argues that partisanship is the primary cause of changes to tax rates. He plans to examine the role of partisanship in town meetings in Vermont, where locals decide on tax and policy issues. Previous literature suggests partisanship strongly influences political and economic behaviors. Sargsyan hypothesizes that towns voting Democrat will have higher taxes, while towns voting Republican will have lower taxes. He will analyze election and tax rate data from 1970-2012 to determine if patterns exist between a town's partisan affiliation and its tax rates.
Leniency policies offering immunity to the first cartel member that blows the whistle and self-reports to the antitrust authority have become the main instrument in the fight against cartels around the world. In public procurement markets, however, bid-rigging schemes are often accompanied by corruption of public officials. In the absence of coordinated forms of leniency for unveiling corruption, a policy offering immunity from antitrust sanctions may not be sufficient to encourage wrongdoers to blow the whistle, as the leniency recipient will then be exposed to the risk of conviction for corruption. Explicitly introducing leniency policies for corruption, as has been recently done in Brazil and Mexico, is only a first step. To increase the effectiveness of leniency in multiple offense cases, we suggest, besides extending automatic leniency to individual criminal sanctions, the creation of a ‘one-stop-point’ enabling firms and individuals to report different crimes simultaneously and receive leniency for all of them at once if they are entitled to it.
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT LAW Articel by Srinath FernandoSRINATH FERNANDO
The document discusses religious tensions and violence in Sri Lanka. It notes that Eid ul-Fitr celebrations were muted due to recent communal violence. While Sri Lanka's constitution protects religious freedom, Buddhist nationalist groups have led campaigns targeting Muslims and Christians. The US International Religious Freedom Report criticized local authorities for failing to respond effectively to attacks on religious minorities. The advent of hardline Buddhist organizations in Sri Lanka has increased bigoted actions, racist rhetoric, and inaccurate information spread to incite racial hatred. The government has failed to arrest these trends and extremist groups are behind most tensions. Already struggling with reconciliation after civil war, Sri Lanka risks repeating past mistakes if it does not take steps to curb extremism and ensure history does not repeat
This document summarizes the history of corporate money in politics and campaign finance law in the United States. It discusses key Supreme Court rulings like Buckley v. Valeo, Bellotti, Austin, McConnell, Citizens United, and Hobby Lobby that have expanded corporate political speech rights and loosened campaign finance regulations. The Powell Memorandum of 1971 encouraged corporations to engage more actively in politics to influence regulations. Over time, the Court has increasingly equated corporate political spending with free speech and overturned restrictions on direct corporate donations to politicians.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise boosts blood flow, releases endorphins, and promotes changes in the brain which help enhance one's emotional well-being and mental clarity.
This document summarizes trends in gender roles and relationships in 2011. It discusses how millennials have different views of gender than previous generations. Both men and women are redefining traditional roles at home and in the workplace. While gender stereotypes are breaking down, finding happiness and love remain high priorities for many.
Este documento presenta un ejemplo de tarea de un estudiante donde se le pide buscar dos ejemplos de WebQuest y dos ejemplos de MiniQuest, y referenciarlos. El estudiante proporciona cuatro ejemplos, dos de cada tipo, incluyendo el nombre, la localización en línea, el tema y el autor cuando está disponible.
The document discusses how love, romance, and sex have changed in the digital age. It notes that while such topics used to be private, mass media exposed people to new ideas and images that influenced relationships. The rise of the internet and social media in particular has given people unrestricted access to intimate content and connections with others online. Some key findings from a survey include that one-third believe online romantic relationships are possible, many know of relationships that started online, and over 20% of men and 10% of women reported having a romantic online relationship. Both discussions and images online influence views of sex, especially for men, but images have a bigger impact overall. People are ambivalent about whether online relationships take pressure off or distract from
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Citizens United v. FEC dealing with campaign finance regulation. The conservative group Citizens United wanted to air a film about Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign, which would have violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The Court ruled 5-4 that the section of the Act prohibiting corporate and union independent political expenditures violated the First Amendment. The ruling overturned precedents that had allowed increased regulation of campaign spending by corporations, finding that political speech cannot be restricted based on the speaker. It did not affect bans on direct candidate donations by corporations.
This document provides an introduction and background on campaign finance law and regulation in the United States. It discusses key Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance from Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 to Citizens United v. FEC in 2010. Scholars are divided on whether Citizens United represented a break from precedent or was consistent with previous rulings. The author argues that FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. in 2007 established the framework that Citizens United built upon, not representing a true break from precedent. The document aims to examine these court rulings in detail to determine how and why campaign finance regulation changed over time.
What the new UK Bribery Act 2010 means for US companiesMatt Stone
The UK Bribery Act 2010 introduces new bribery offenses that apply to any company doing business in the UK. The Act establishes a strict liability offense of failing to prevent bribery by persons associated with a company. This means US companies with UK ties can be prosecuted under UK law for corrupt acts anywhere in the world. Compared to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Bribery Act is broader in scope and lacks exemptions for small facilitation payments. To avoid UK criminal liability, US companies must implement adequate anti-bribery procedures for their staff and service providers worldwide.
Applying ''Citizens United'' to the States LawCrossing
Attorney General for Montana, has been critical of the Citizens United ruling. His office stated that it couldn't comment until it received a copy of the lawsuit.
This document outlines El Paso Corporation's political accountability policy. The policy has four main purposes: 1) to encourage the development of sound public policy, 2) to summarize laws regarding political activities, 3) to specify internal compliance procedures, and 4) to ensure disclosure and accountability to shareholders. It discusses laws around political contributions and lobbying, guidelines for corporate and PAC contributions, rules around employee political activities, and oversight of the company's political activities.
This paper reports results from an experiment studying how fines, leniency programs and reward schemes for whistleblowers affect cartel formation and prices. Antitrust without leniency reduces cartel formation, but increases cartel prices: subjects use costly fines as (altruistic) punishments. Leniency further increases deterrence, but stabilizes surviving cartels: subjects appear to anticipate harsher times after defections as leniency reduces recidivism and lowers post-conviction prices. With rewards, cartels are reported systematically and prices finally fall. If a ringleader is excluded from leniency, deterrence is unaffected but prices grow. Differences between treatments in Stockholm and Rome suggest culture may affect optimal law enforcement.
Since coming into office two years ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping has carried out a sweeping, highly publicized anticorruption campaign. Skeptics are debating whether the campaign is biased towards Mr. Xi’s rivals, and even possibly related to the current economic slowdown. What is less debated is the next stage of Mr. Xi’s anti-corruption strategy, which is going to alter the legal statutes. Amendment IX, proposed in October 2014, includes heavier penalties, but two important tools in the fight of corruption – one-sided leniency and asymmetric punishment – became more limited and discretional. We argue that studying a 1997 reform and its effects can shed some light onto why the Chinese leadership seems dissatisfied with the current legislation and the likely effects of the proposed changes.
Tony Fiore, attorney at Kegler Brown and director of government affairs for the Ohio State Council of SHRM, moderated "Hazed and Confused" at the 2015 Ohio SHRM Employment Law + Legislative Conference on June 3, 2015.
The presentation examined the impact of marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington and Ohio's proposed ballot initiatives. Additional speakers included Kelley Duke from Ireland Stapleton Pryor & Pascoe (Denver, CO) and Cliff Webster from Carney, Badley, Spellman (Seattle, WA).
This document summarizes Gor Sargsyan's research on the influence of political partisanship on tax rates in Vermont. Sargsyan argues that partisanship is the primary cause of changes to tax rates. He plans to examine the role of partisanship in town meetings in Vermont, where locals decide on tax and policy issues. Previous literature suggests partisanship strongly influences political and economic behaviors. Sargsyan hypothesizes that towns voting Democrat will have higher taxes, while towns voting Republican will have lower taxes. He will analyze election and tax rate data from 1970-2012 to determine if patterns exist between a town's partisan affiliation and its tax rates.
Leniency policies offering immunity to the first cartel member that blows the whistle and self-reports to the antitrust authority have become the main instrument in the fight against cartels around the world. In public procurement markets, however, bid-rigging schemes are often accompanied by corruption of public officials. In the absence of coordinated forms of leniency for unveiling corruption, a policy offering immunity from antitrust sanctions may not be sufficient to encourage wrongdoers to blow the whistle, as the leniency recipient will then be exposed to the risk of conviction for corruption. Explicitly introducing leniency policies for corruption, as has been recently done in Brazil and Mexico, is only a first step. To increase the effectiveness of leniency in multiple offense cases, we suggest, besides extending automatic leniency to individual criminal sanctions, the creation of a ‘one-stop-point’ enabling firms and individuals to report different crimes simultaneously and receive leniency for all of them at once if they are entitled to it.
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT LAW Articel by Srinath FernandoSRINATH FERNANDO
The document discusses religious tensions and violence in Sri Lanka. It notes that Eid ul-Fitr celebrations were muted due to recent communal violence. While Sri Lanka's constitution protects religious freedom, Buddhist nationalist groups have led campaigns targeting Muslims and Christians. The US International Religious Freedom Report criticized local authorities for failing to respond effectively to attacks on religious minorities. The advent of hardline Buddhist organizations in Sri Lanka has increased bigoted actions, racist rhetoric, and inaccurate information spread to incite racial hatred. The government has failed to arrest these trends and extremist groups are behind most tensions. Already struggling with reconciliation after civil war, Sri Lanka risks repeating past mistakes if it does not take steps to curb extremism and ensure history does not repeat
This document summarizes the history of corporate money in politics and campaign finance law in the United States. It discusses key Supreme Court rulings like Buckley v. Valeo, Bellotti, Austin, McConnell, Citizens United, and Hobby Lobby that have expanded corporate political speech rights and loosened campaign finance regulations. The Powell Memorandum of 1971 encouraged corporations to engage more actively in politics to influence regulations. Over time, the Court has increasingly equated corporate political spending with free speech and overturned restrictions on direct corporate donations to politicians.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise boosts blood flow, releases endorphins, and promotes changes in the brain which help enhance one's emotional well-being and mental clarity.
This document summarizes trends in gender roles and relationships in 2011. It discusses how millennials have different views of gender than previous generations. Both men and women are redefining traditional roles at home and in the workplace. While gender stereotypes are breaking down, finding happiness and love remain high priorities for many.
Este documento presenta un ejemplo de tarea de un estudiante donde se le pide buscar dos ejemplos de WebQuest y dos ejemplos de MiniQuest, y referenciarlos. El estudiante proporciona cuatro ejemplos, dos de cada tipo, incluyendo el nombre, la localización en línea, el tema y el autor cuando está disponible.
The document discusses how love, romance, and sex have changed in the digital age. It notes that while such topics used to be private, mass media exposed people to new ideas and images that influenced relationships. The rise of the internet and social media in particular has given people unrestricted access to intimate content and connections with others online. Some key findings from a survey include that one-third believe online romantic relationships are possible, many know of relationships that started online, and over 20% of men and 10% of women reported having a romantic online relationship. Both discussions and images online influence views of sex, especially for men, but images have a bigger impact overall. People are ambivalent about whether online relationships take pressure off or distract from
The document discusses the results of a study on the effects of exercise on memory and thinking abilities in older adults. The study found that regular exercise can help reduce the decline in thinking abilities that often occurs with age. Older adults who exercised regularly performed better on cognitive tests and brain scans showed they had greater activity in important areas for memory and learning compared to less active peers.
The document discusses several trends that may emerge in the future, including:
1. Life apprenticeships from ages 19-29 to prepare for lifelong reinvention.
2. Domestic partnerships formed for healthcare and tax benefits.
3. Homeschooling increasing through online resources and social media.
4. Monitoring fatigue as an increasingly discussed condition.
Federal election commission and citizens unitedalwaysalwaysfun
The Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC centered around a documentary film called "Hillary: The Movie" produced by Citizens United intended to influence voters against Hillary Clinton. The Federal Election Commission prevented the film's release on TV due to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act banning corporate electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary. Citizens United sued and the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the BCRA restrictions violated free speech by limiting corporate independent political expenditures. The decision was controversial and opened the door for unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns.
Read Case 2-6 on page 59- Answer the question- -Should corporations ha.docxlmarie40
The document discusses the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court case regarding campaign finance regulation. It provides background on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and Citizens United's challenge to the law over its documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the law violated the First Amendment by restricting corporate independent political expenditures. While direct contributions to candidates can be limited, the government cannot ban corporations from seeking to persuade the public through means like TV ads. The document poses questions on whether the ruling applies to books, if corporations have constitutional rights, and if President Obama's criticism of the ruling was correct.
The document provides an overview of key concepts in U.S. government and politics, including political culture, parties, elections, branches of government, interest groups, and policies/documents. Some key topics covered include political socialization, voting demographics, media influence, political ideologies, primary elections, the electoral college system, congressional committees, executive powers, Supreme Court cases, and the federal bureaucracy.
Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionFor more than 100 .docxmonicafrancis71118
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
For more than 100 years Congress and the Supreme Court carefully fashioned laws to check corporate power in elections. At first, the restraints were loose, but over the years they tightened. There were de- bates and a few dissents, but the nation never hesi- tated in its direction—until 2010 when five justices of the Supreme Court decided to reverse course. This is the story of their decision. It begins in the nation’s youth.
CONGRESS PROTECTS
ELECTIONS
In the American philosophy of self-government, free elections are an indispensable bulwark against tyranny. The founders believed all citizens should have the right to vote, that their votes should count equally, and that a majority should prevail. The rules in the Constitution bound the young nation to these ideals. The Founding Fathers also believed that if citizens were to vote wisely, they needed full, open debate on candidates and issues. The central purpose of the First Amendment, which directs that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” is to protect this debate.
In the early years of the republic the practice largely accorded with the ideal. The first challenge came right after the Civil War when violence and intimidation kept freed slaves from the polls. Con- gress passed two Enforcement Acts in 1870 and 1871 to protect the freed slaves’ right to vote and these were the first election laws. The Supreme Court eventually upheld “the [constitutional] power of [C]ongress to make such provisions as are necessary to secure the fair and honest conduct of an election.”1
A second challenge to “fair and honest conduct” in elections arose when industrial growth created pools of great wealth. By the 1870s railroads were already spending heavily for political favors. In 1873 Jay Gould, owner of the Erie Railroad, explained his businesslike approach to elections.
It was the custom when men received nominations to come to me for contributions, and I made them and considered them good paying dividends for the company; in a republican district I was a strong re- publican, in a democratic district I was democratic, and in doubtful districts I was doubtful; in politics
I was an Erie railroad man every time.2
As time passed, the amounts of business money in elections grew. So did public perception of corrup- tion, real and imagined. Standard Oil is reported to have given a check for $250,000 (about $6.4 million in current dollars) to reelect McKinley in 1900. In 1905 an investigation of New York insurance companies inflamed the nation. It revealed they had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars electing state and national politicians. A prominent Republican boss, when asked if these contributions bought favors, re- plied: “That’s naturally what would be involved.”3 The investigation also revealed a $50,000 ($1.2 mil- lion in today’s dollars) donation from New York Life to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt, who had s.
The correct answers are:
C) Russ Feingold and John McCain
A) Citizens united v. Federal Elections Commission
B) Buckley v. Valeo
C) Campaign Finance Reform Act
D) Hard money, soft money
B) Federal Election Commission
The document discusses lobbying by the American Medical Association (AMA). It states that from 2007-2011, the AMA spent around $19 million annually on lobbying to influence legislation. In 2015, the AMA spent $6.72 million on lobbying through 15 lobbyists, but with limited success in swaying votes. Lobbying involves trying to influence political decisions through advocacy but cannot guarantee results.
The document discusses the dominance of wealthy interests in politics undermining middle-class views. It proposes a constitutional amendment for public funding of elections to address this issue. It would prohibit private contributions and expenditures to political campaigns, with campaigns receiving only public funds. The amendment could be proposed through a joint congressional resolution or citizen ballot initiatives in states allowing them. If approved by Congress and ratified by 38 states, it would become a constitutional amendment.
9/9 FRI 9:30 | Combating Corruption By Being Ethical 2APA Florida
Nancy Stroud
The training session will focus on the new fourth section of the AICP Ethics Code. Included will be a dialogue about the ongoing ethical code efforts in Broward and Palm Beach counties to help combat the political corruption that has sent multiple city
and county commissioners, and at least one certified planner, to prison. A must hear for all planners.
This document discusses interest groups, which are organizations that attempt to influence government decision-making. It notes that interest groups can help address issues like collective action problems. There are different types of interest groups, including economic groups, public interest groups, and think tanks. Lobbyists represent interest groups to government officials. Political action committees raise money to influence elections. Recent Supreme Court rulings have increased the role of money in politics. Interest groups engage in both insider lobbying of Congress as well as outsider efforts to shape public opinion. There is a debate around the representational inequalities and influence that interest groups, especially those with greater resources, may wield.
Campaign finance reform aims to regulate political spending and funding sources. Current regulations include contribution limits, disclosure requirements, and public financing options. However, recent Supreme Court rulings have loosened some restrictions by allowing unlimited independent expenditures and treating corporations similarly to people in terms of political spending. Critics argue this disproportionately benefits wealthy interests and undermines democracy, while supporters see it as protecting free speech. The impact of money in politics continues to be widely debated.
The document discusses several topics related to political parties in the United States including what they are, their functions, the origins of the two-party system, different types of party systems, and aspects of how U.S. political parties operate such as nominating candidates, funding campaigns, and enforcing campaign finance laws.
The document discusses 7 trends to watch in 2012:
1. People power and social media empowering both individuals and large organizations.
2. The always connected millennial generation reshaping notions of time and place.
3. Increased focus on privacy as people limit what they share online.
4. The rise of hyperlocal and location-based content and apps while universal interests remain.
5. PR professionals needing a wide range of skills to adapt to changing media landscapes.
6. Fragmented approaches to health and wellness combining scientific and alternative approaches.
7. A turn toward optimism and hopeful stories to boost consumer sentiment.
This document discusses six key trends in Western Europe: 1) Continuing optimism despite economic crises, with companies focusing on culture and communities. 2) Growing austerity and frugality as lavish consumption declines. 3) Embracing imperfection over perfection. 4) Increasing urbanization as cities offer opportunities. 5) Addressing climate change through weather prediction and dealing with effects. 6) Sustained luxury market through technology and temporary pop-up stores.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise stimulates the production of endorphins in the brain which elevate mood and reduce stress levels.
1. The document discusses 15 trends related to marketing to women around the world. It focuses on trends in the Gulf region as well as worldwide.
2. Some of the key trends discussed include: the growing perception that society has become too obsessed with youth; more women obtaining higher education globally and becoming smarter faster than men; and an increasing number of single women ("singletons") choosing to not marry or have families, especially in Western countries.
3. The document provides analysis of each trend and implications for marketers, emphasizing the need to recognize changing demographics and address the anxieties and values of women consumers.
April 2012: Marian Salzman (Havas PR CEO) speech given at Eller College of Management, University of Arizona. Spots five key trends for Western Europe by examining various criteria.
The Teenage Girl as Consumer and CommunicatorHavasPR
The document discusses findings from a survey of 100 American teenage girls aged 13 to 18 conducted in November 2009. Some key findings include:
- Teenage girls spend purposefully online, knowing what they are looking for, which is mainly keeping in touch with friends through social media.
- They are selective about what brands and trends they follow and prefer to actively seek out sales and deals from brands rather than being passively marketed to.
- They share new brand or shopping information mainly through one-on-one communication like texting rather than broadcasting on social media. Intimacy with a small circle of close friends is important.
- They prefer to shop in physical stores so they can see and touch items, and enjoy
The document summarizes findings from a survey conducted by Euro RSCG Worldwide of 500 Americans. Key findings include:
1) American women report higher levels of worry across many issues than American men, including concerns about health care, crime, aging problems, and loss of trusted leaders. Women feel many losses from modern life more acutely than men.
2) Both American men and women named running out of money as their biggest worry about aging. However, women showed higher levels of worry than men for almost all other aspects of aging.
3) Compared to a decade ago, Americans' views on politics, the economy, and the American Dream have experienced major shifts. Events like 9/11, the
For most people living and working in developed parts of the world, it is difficult to remember life Before Digital—the time before computers, Internet, and mobile phones. For those under age 25, it is not just difficult but virtually impossible to remember such a predigital existence.
These people are known as Millenials, and Social Media is embedded in their DNA.
In October 2009, Euro RSCG Worldwide commissioned a survey to map the trajectory of social life and social media usage in the United States, quizzing 1,228 Americans from all online demographics.This white paper looks at the macro developments in social media; it also brings in numbers and verbatims about people’s hopes for their social life online and offline before finally drawing conclusions and implications for marketers and their clients.
American homes are changing to adapt to shifting family structures and economic realities. More families now include multiple generations living together in larger homes designed for interaction and caregiving needs. As the economy forces Americans to spend more time at home, homes are becoming destinations for entertainment, socializing, and self-expression. Smaller homes are gaining popularity as a sustainable option, utilizing space efficiently and resources like solar power. The future of home centers on multi-generational and environmentally friendly designs that meet evolving family and social needs.
Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptxPragencyuk
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
El Puerto de Algeciras continúa un año más como el más eficiente del continente europeo y vuelve a situarse en el “top ten” mundial, según el informe The Container Port Performance Index 2023 (CPPI), elaborado por el Banco Mundial y la consultora S&P Global.
El informe CPPI utiliza dos enfoques metodológicos diferentes para calcular la clasificación del índice: uno administrativo o técnico y otro estadístico, basado en análisis factorial (FA). Según los autores, esta dualidad pretende asegurar una clasificación que refleje con precisión el rendimiento real del puerto, a la vez que sea estadísticamente sólida. En esta edición del informe CPPI 2023, se han empleado los mismos enfoques metodológicos y se ha aplicado un método de agregación de clasificaciones para combinar los resultados de ambos enfoques y obtener una clasificación agregada.
An astonishing, first-of-its-kind, report by the NYT assessing damage in Ukraine. Even if the war ends tomorrow, in many places there will be nothing to go back to.
Acolyte Episodes review (TV series) The Acolyte. Learn about the influence of the program on the Star Wars world, as well as new characters and story twists.
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
1. AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
What Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Means for Companies’ Political Campaign Spending
WHITE PAPERJUNE 2011
3. Introduction
With President Barack Obama now in re-election mode and Republican presidential
hopefuls visiting key primary states, the 2012 presidential campaign is under way.
Every day, there seem to be even more Republican and independent potential
contenders thinking about whether they want to take a leap into presidential politics
or sit this cycle out.
As the race begins to heat up, candidates will need to raise a record number of
campaign dollars. Presidential candidates, as well as candidates running for other
federal and state offices, will find new challenges because of the recent Supreme
Court ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The dramatic court
ruling resulted in a decision that allows, for the first time in more than 60 years,
corporations and unions to give unlimited amounts of money from their treasuries
for political advertisements and broadcasting—even to companies owned by foreign
corporations. In fact, corporations and unions are equated with individuals. This
means they can spend unlimited amounts of money on supporting or even opposing a
specific candidate for public office up to the day of the primary or general election,
which was not the case in any former presidential race.
Before any corporation or union decides to invest large amounts of money in any
specific candidate, it will need to know more about the challenges, as well as the
opportunities. Companies will need to carefully consider many aspects of this
decision, such as:
• The ruling is a radical shift in policy that will affect the cost and access of media
buys for corporations, unions and candidates during primary and general races.
• Opposition to the ruling has resulted in companion legislation introduced in both
the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to combat the impact of
the decision.
• National polls show that the concept of a foreign-owned company interfering
with U.S. elections makes Democratic, Republican and non-party-affiliated
consumers uncomfortable.
• The risks involved for any corporation or union to be viewed as partisan by its
customers, consumers or members might outweigh any benefits.
• Some corporations and unions will take the risk; therefore, they will need to
evaluate what’s best for them to stay competitive.
Corporations and unions will need to assess their brand, where and when they could
be involved with a candidate or campaign, and how it will affect their business.
Euro RSCG Worldwide commissioned political consultant Jennifer Ryan Safsel of
Sagamore Strategies to write this white paper to help companies understand their
options and the facts surrounding the Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission ruling. Safsel works with nonprofits, private corporations, campaigns
and small businesses on political, grassroots, strategy and public affairs projects.
Read on for explanations of the major arguments of the ruling, reactions from U.S.
senators and congressmen, key points that will affect businesses and possible
political implications.
WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED 3
Coverphoto:creativecommons.org/Brymo;Thispage(fromtop):creativecommons.org/pargon;creativecommons.org/GypsyFae;creativecommons.org/vancouverfilmschool
4. Executive Summary
RULING OVERVIEW
On Jan. 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission (docket No. 08-205) rejected a ban on corporate spending in
federal elections in the final 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary
election cycle.
This ruling overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a
1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose
political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 ruling
that upheld part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) that
restricted spending by corporations and unions. Corporations have been banned since
1947 from using their profit to endorse or oppose candidates for elective office, a
restriction that the Court now ruled unconstitutional.
The divided Supreme Court ruling, with a vote of 5-4, was a sharp turn from decades
of finance reform legislation put in place to control the amount of money
corporations could spend on broadcasting political advertisements and documentaries
in support of or against an individual candidate. It was viewed by some as a step
forward in protecting First Amendment principles: the right to engage the freedom of
speech, particularly political speech, and the right of free association.
As a result, the decision removes limits on independent expenditures that are not
coordinated with candidates’ campaigns; therefore, corporations and not-for-profits
can spend any amount of money they want to run ads, and there’s no limit as to
4 WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
creativecommons.org/notsogoodphotography
5. when those ads can be run. Corporations and nonprofits are, however, still limited
in what they can directly donate to a candidate’s campaign committee. The ruling
might affect state as well as federal campaigns.
LEAD ARGUMENTS
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision. As his argument to
overturn the current ruling, he invoked the First Amendment right of freedom of
speech that confirms the freedom to think for ourselves. He said that the
marketplace of ideas guaranteed by the Constitution includes corporations,
which, after all, represent a significant segment of society and of our economic
life. He emphasized: “When Government seeks to use its full power, including the
criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or
what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control
thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think
for ourselves.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote part of the decision for the case that was
overturned (the BCRA, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act), called the five-
justice majority’s decision a “radical departure from what had been settled First
Amendment law.”
In his dissent, Stevens warned that “[t]he Court’s ruling threatens to undermine
the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.…In the context of election
to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is
significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society,
corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office.
Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may
conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.… It might
also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no
thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of
human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal
fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for
whom our Constitution was established.”
In concurring with Kennedy’s written argument, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
“The authorized spokesman of a corporation is a human being, who speaks on
behalf of the human beings who have formed that association—just as the
spokesman of an unincorporated association speaks on behalf of its members. The
power to publish thoughts, no less than the power to speak thoughts, belongs only
to human beings, but the dissent sees no problem with a corporation’s enjoying the
freedom of the press.”
In Citizens United, the Court ended the suppression of corporate and union
speech. Many have predicted this will have dire consequences. Says Sen. Mitch
McConnell (R-KY): “What they fail to mention is that 26 states already allow
corporate and union speech, something that has had no discernable adverse
impact. Any proponent of free speech should applaud this decision. Citizens United
is and will be a First Amendment triumph of enduring significance.”
WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED 5
creativecommons.org/sjgibbs80
6. Points of the Ruling
•The ruling strikes down a 63-year-old ban on corporations and labor unions using money from their
corporate treasuries to produce and air campaign ads in races for Congress and the White House.
•Under the ruling, corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money to air campaign ads 30
days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.
•The ruling does keep in place a ban on direct coordination with the candidates and/or their campaign
committees. This means the corporations and unions must act independently from the candidates’
election committees and cannot strategize on an ad or its content.
•The decision does not address companies or unions contributing directly to candidates. Therefore,
corporations and unions will still need political action committees (PACs) to donate directly to candidates.
PACs are still limited to $5,000 donations in a primary and $5,000 in a general campaign cycle, a total
of $10,000 per candidate, per election. Not all candidates for U.S. Senate and Congress take PAC
money, however.
•Foreign-owned corporations can air advertisements or documentaries that support or oppose a candidate.
Not in 100 years has this been allowed.
creativecommons.org/Seansie
6 WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
7. Case Background
The nonprofit corporation Citizens United (Citizens), a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt
entity, produced the 2008 documentary Hillary: The Movie, about Hillary Clinton,
to coincide with the presidential election. Citizens planned the releases of and
advertising for the movie around important 2008 events—state presidential
primaries and caucuses, the Democratic National Convention and the general
presidential election—to affect the races.
The documentary critically depicted Clinton’s record as first lady, U.S. senator and
presidential candidate and expressed the nonprofit’s opinions about whether she
was qualified to be president. Citizens knew the movie would be perceived as
“electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days
of a general election. Therefore, knowing it would conflict with the BCRA (the
McCain-Feingold Act), Citizens sought an injunction to block the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) from enforcing sections 201, 203 and 311 of the law on the
grounds that they violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
According to Section 203, corporations and unions are prohibited from airing
“broadcast, cable or satellite” communications made within 30 days of a primary
election or 60 days of a general election. Disclosure of electioneering
communications restricts nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations and labor
unions from funding electioneering communications from their general funds
except under certain specific circumstances—for example, candidate forums. They
are still subject to regulations adopted by the commission.
WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED 7
creativecommons.org/rharrison
8. If a person gives a total of $10,000 or more a year for the production and airing
of electioneering communications, he or she is required to disclose the full
amount with the FEC within 48 hours. The disclosure must include the names and
addresses of person(s) who have contributed more than $1,000 to accounts
paying for the communication—although corporations and their donors should be
aware that they more likely will have to give their name, address and employer
information when contributing $200 or more. Section 311, which contains a
disclaimer provision for electioneering communications, says that an entity
responsible for the communications, if not authorized by the candidate or the
candidate’s political committee, must contain a statement that the organization
“is responsible for the content of this advertising.”
BCRA’s Section 403 sets rules for constitutional challenges to its provisions.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
must handle such claims. Appeals from this court go directly to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The district court refused to grant Citizens’ request in Citizens United v.
FEC. The court noted that the Supreme Court upheld BCRA’s Section 203 in
McConnell v. FEC and rejected the argument that the funding of electioneering
communications “constituting express advocacy or its functional equivalent” is
protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment. “As applied” challenges—
specific applications of the law to certain communications—are a different
matter. In FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., the high court held that
advertisements only constitute express advocacy or its functional equivalent if
they are “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to
vote for or against a specific candidate.” The district court held that Citizens’
movie was the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” and ruled that its
critique of Clinton’s presidential character, candidacy and qualifications was
intended to convince voters that she should not be elected.
creativecommons.org/blmurch
creativecommons.org/maveric2003 8 WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
9. “I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court
and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union
contributions. However, it appears that key aspects of
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), including the
ban on soft money contributions, remain intact.”
—U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), co-author and co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law 170-155), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN’S VIEW
WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED 9
creativecommons.org/imageeditor
10. “It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold’s
soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the
political parties from corrupting the political process. But this decision was a
terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme
Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money
in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important
principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given
corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years
ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into
their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ Yet
this Court has just upended that prohibition and a century’s worth of campaign
finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people
will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are
drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming
weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of
the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.”
—Former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), co-author and co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law 170-155), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act
FORMER SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD’S VIEW
CourtesyRussFeingoldpressoffice
10 WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
11. Although the movie about Hillary Clinton might have been subject to BCRA Section
203, the FEC conceded that advertising for the movie was not. However, Citizens
objected to disclosure and disclaimer requirements under BCRA, claiming they did
not apply because they weren’t “express advocacy or the functional equivalent”
under Wis. Right to Life. The district court held that McConnell and Wis. Right to
Life did not apply that standard to the disclosure and disclaimer requirements,
provisions to which the Supreme Court had shown some approval in the past.
Citizens appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. After hearing arguments on
the case in March 2009, the Supreme Court did not render an opinion. Instead, the
case was rescheduled for reargument on whether the Court should reverse prior
holdings sanctioning laws that restrict how corporations can make political
contributions. It was phrased this way:
For the proper disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or
both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), and
the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003),
which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U.S.C. §441b?
The Austin opinion held that a Michigan law that prohibited nonmedia corporations
from using general funds to make political contributions, requiring such
contributions to be made through “separate segregated funds” set up for political
purposes, was constitutional. As noted earlier, McConnell held that Section 203 in
BCRA is also constitutional. The ruling overruled these precedents:
Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government
to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b’s restrictions
on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Given
this conclusion, the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA §203’s extension of
§441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled.
Oral argument on these issues was held on Sept. 9, 2009. This was the first case
heard by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who replaced Associate Justice David
Souter. The 5-4 ruling was on Jan. 21, 2010.
WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED 11
creativecommons.org/Obama-BidenTransition
creativecommons.org/steakpinball
12. Political and
Policy Implications
POLITICAL OUTCOMES
Given that two of Bush’s appointments struck down any ban on corporate spending,
some people have suggested that this Supreme Court outcome is a direct result of
the Bush administration’s Supreme Court justice nominations.The Supreme Court’s
ruling seven years ago to uphold the McCain-Feingold legislation was due to the fact
that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor supported the bill’s constitutionality. Since she has
stepped down and was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, and with the appointment of
the new Chief Justice, John Roberts, the makeup of the court has shifted.The change
in the Supreme Court and the power shift it causes might be used by some as a
possible election issue; some candidates could highlight the ruling in advertisements
and label their opponents to be for big business and against the average American. In
addition, given the public’s dislike of this ruling, some candidates might use it as a
clear example of the importance of the 2012 presidential election, highlighting the
power of the president to choose Supreme Court nominees.
12 WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
creativecommons.org/dbking
CollectionoftheSupremeCourtoftheU.S.
13. WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED 13
CITIZENS UNITED’S IMPACT ON THE 2010 MIDTERMS
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision resulted in record
amounts of money spent in the 2010 midterm elections. According to estimates by
the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money in
politics, the total amount of money spent in the midterm elections was about $4
billion. That’s up from $2.85 billion in 2006.
During those midterm elections, 527 organizations had the option, by filing additional
paperwork, to solicit unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations to
spend on independent political efforts. These 527s are required to disclose their
donors. Their ability to gather and then spend unlimited amounts of money in the
midterm elections would not have been allowed in previous elections.
The court decision also allows 501(c)(6)s—groups such as trade organizations and
business leagues, which are funded by payments of member corporations—to not be
required to disclose their donors. Those groups capitalized on the new ability to spend
on independent expenditure campaigns. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for instance,
spent $32.9 million from its corporate-funded treasury on independent political
communications. That group has a deep roster of corporate members, but it did not
disclose contributors that provided the funding for its political advertising.
creativecommons.org/kevindooley
14. 14 WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
It is this lack of full disclosure that concerns many policymakers and citizen watchdog
groups. Many feel that money spent in elections should be linked with advertisements or
candidates.
According to a Washington Post–ABC News poll of 1,004 people randomly surveyed,
65 percent “strongly” oppose the ruling.There is little difference by party line: Eighty-
five percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of independents
oppose the ruling.
Some corporations might choose to set up PACs within their company, while others will
decide not to get involved in elections at all. But corporations with specific legislative
needs that affect their bottom line are expected to be even more proactive in the
upcoming 2012 election cycle.
According to the Sunlight Foundation, 40 percent of outside money in the 2010
midterms came from money that was made possible by the Supreme Court ruling.The
ability for, say, a former longtime party leader to organize, raise unlimited amounts of
money and contribute large amounts to oppose a candidate all without disclosing
donors would not have been allowed before the Supreme Court ruling.These types of
unlimited and undisclosed contributions can very well—and did in some instances—
make or break a race.
Russ Feingold, for instance, a longtime proponent of campaign finance reform and the
co-sponsor and co-author of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law
170-155), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, lost his race to millionaire plastics
CEO Ron Johnson, who outspent him four to one with help from outside organizations.
Corporations donated to both Republicans and Democrats. But some did experience
consumer backlash. Last summer,Target Corp. was one of the first companies to test
the 2010 midterm election political waters. It donated campaign contributions to MN
Forward, a newly formed Chamber of Commerce–affiliated group, which in turn used the
campaign funds to back Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer.
Target found itself boycotted for the candidate’s anti-gay-marriage stand and his ties to
anti-gay groups.Target made a public apology.
This situation clearly illustrates the difficulties corporations face when their consumers
discover that their money is going for something other than what they expect it to.
creativecommons.org/jreed
creativecommons.org/freedomtomarry
15. WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED 15
creativecommons.org/dmooney
creativecommons.org/IowaPolitics.com
CourtesyChrisVanHollenpressoffice
IMPLICATIONS FOR REPUBLICANS
Republicans who tend to have strong ties with corporation and business leaders will
benefit greatly in the upcoming 2012 elections from this ruling. Conservative
Republicans, however, might benefit most in Republican primaries. The ruling still
upholds that corporations, foreign nationals, government contractors or labor
organization treasury funds cannot give directly to a candidate or coordinate with a
campaign committee’s strategy and messaging. But in this age of technology, social
media and fast-paced coverage, the reality is that it doesn’t take much for a
company to copy or mirror a campaign.
IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOCRATS
Democrats, who usually have more union support, will also benefit. Most Democrats,
however, believe in general that they will be at a disadvantage because big
corporations will pour large amounts of money into expensive media buys, therefore
driving up the cost of prime media buys and drowning out their policy and campaign
messages, making it difficult to get their message out to voters.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION
On April 29, 2010, U.S. Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Russ Feingold (D-WI),
Ron Wyden (D-OR), Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Al Franken (D-MN) formally announced
their Senate bill to combat what they believe are dangerous impacts of the Supreme
Court’s decision to allow corporations and other special interests to spend unlimited
sums to influence elections.The legislation (S.3295) is the Democracy Is
Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act, or the DISCLOSE
Act. A bipartisan-supported companion version of the bill, with the same name (HR
5175), was drafted in the House of Representatives by Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-
MD), Mike Castle (R-DE), Walter Jones (R-NC) and Robert Brady (D-PA).
16. “At a time when the public’s fears about the influence of
special interests were already high, the Court’s decision stacks
the deck against the average American even more. Our bill will
follow the money. In cases where corporations try to mask their
activities through shadow groups, we drill down so that ultimate
funder of the expenditure is disclosed. If we don’t act quickly to
confront this ruling, we will have let the Supreme Court
predetermine the outcome of next November’s elections. It won’t
be Republicans or Democrats; it will be Corporate America and
other special interests.”
—U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), co-sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER’S VIEW
creativecommons.org/senatorcharleseschumer
16 WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
17. WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED 17
MinimalistPhotography
The legislation sought to prevent foreign-owned corporations and government
contractors from spending money on U.S. elections. Schumer, for example, has cited
the governments of Venezuela, which owns the oil company Citgo, and China, which
owns part of several large corporations, as the types of companies he feels should not
be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on advertisements to affect U.S.
elections.
According to Section 102 of the DISCLOSE Act, to close the loophole, the legislation
extends the existing prohibition on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals
to include domestic corporations under the following circumstances:
1. If a foreign national owns 20 percent or more of voting shares in the corporation,
which is modeled after the control test in many states, including Delaware;
2. If a majority of the board of directors are foreign nationals;
3. If one or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate or control the
decision-making of the U.S. subsidiary; or
4. If one or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate or control the
activities with respect to federal, state or local elections.
The concept of a foreign-owned company interfering with U.S. elections makes people
on both sides of the aisle uncomfortable. In fact, a Washington Post-ABC News poll
indicated that 72 percent of people polled, including Democrats, Republicans and non-
party-affiliated voters, would support legislation to curb the Supreme Court ruling.
And 79 percent of respondents disapproved of the ruling, according to a nationwide
poll by Quinnipiac.
In addition, the DISCLOSE Act would ban government contractors and companies
that have received government assistance from making political expenditures—and
also require corporations, unions and other organizations that make political
expenditures to disclose their donors and stand by their ads. It includes strict
reporting timelines and requires disclaimers by senior leaders of corporations, unions
and organizations to identify themselves with their political ads, similar to the
disclaimers required by candidates.
Said Sen. Wyden: “I wish Congress didn’t have to take action to ensure that a
citizen’s voice doesn’t get buried by new and larger mountains of corporate cash; but
that is what our legislation will do. If the Supreme Court wants to treat corporations
as individuals, then we will hold those entities to the same standards of accountability
that we do individuals, which means requiring that CEOs, labor leaders and even
political consultants stand by their ads.”
18. “the disclosure of campaign-donor information is essential to our democracy. The
absence of transparency will enable special interest groups to bankroll campaign
initiatives while operating under a veil of anonymity. I will continue to press for greater
donor disclosure in the courts, and in Congress, in order to bring in the much-needed
sunlight. We have been unable to enact enhanced disclosure requirements through
Congress. However, we have found that the requirements in existing law have been
significantly loosened by the FEC’s interpretation. The lawsuit I am filing…seeks to restore
the statutory requirement that provides greater disclosure of the donors who provide
funding for electioneering communications. If this standard had been adhered to, much of
the more than $135 million in secret contributions that funded expenditures in the 2010
congressional races would have been disclosed to the public.”
—U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), co-sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act
REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN’S VIEW
18 WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
Wikimediacommons
19. creativecommons.org/citizenactionny
WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED 19
On the House side, Van Hollen has used AIG or a big Wall Street firm or other firms
that received Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money as an example of types
of conflicting interest. His point is that if a corporation got federal assistance to be
bailed out, then that company should not be able to spend unlimited amounts of
money because those are no longer corporate funds but federal taxpayers’ money
until the company repays them to the taxpayers.
The legislation passed the House but was one vote short in the Senate; therefore, it
did not get passed in the 111th Congress. In the new 112th Congress, U.S. Sen.
Harry Reid and 11 co-sponsors have introduced Senate bill S.9, the Political
Reform and Gridlock Elimination Act, which includes the DISCLOSE legislation
provisions. The bill has been referred to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration. Legislators would like to pass S.9 legislation before the 2012
presidential election cycle. To get it passed, they will have to make it a “voting
issue” and tap into the public’s dislike of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which is
perceived to favor the voices of business over theirs.
The DISCLOSE Act has not been able to be reintroduced in the House. The new
Congress is not expected to act on the legislation, but the public does not seem
happy with the idea of advertisements and political messaging done without their
knowing who is behind the messaging. According to a New York Times/CBS poll,
92 percent of the people polled believe candidates should be legally required to
disclose how much money they raised and where it came from.
On April 21, 2011, Rep. Van Hollen filed a lawsuit against the FEC regulations that
have undermined the campaign finance disclosure requirements established in the
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) to require groups that
pay for so-called electioneering communications ads to disclose the donors who
provided funds for them. These disclosure requirements apply to nonprofit
corporations and other groups that conduct outside spending campaigns that
influence federal elections. According to a statement from Van Hollen’s office, the
law requires the disclosure of the identity and contribution amounts of donors who
fund electioneering communications. The FEC, in its regulation implementing the law,
requires disclosure of donors only when the donation “was made for the purpose of
furthering electioneering communications” by the spender. This restriction on
contribution disclosure is not found in the statute. “Congress did not include a ‘state
of mind’ or ‘purpose’ condition tied to ‘furthering’ electioneering communications in
the relevant McCain-Feingold disclosure provision,” said Van Hollen. “The FEC, by
adding this requirement in its regulations, has contravened the plain language and
meaning of the statute and gutted the contribution disclosure requirements for
‘electioneering communications.’”
In addition, the White House has noted that President Obama is considering an
executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose political donations, even to
nonprofit organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A presidential order
would take effect immediately and would affect fundraising for the 2012 elections.
20. “The Court ruled unconstitutional sections of
federal law that barred corporations and unions from
spending their own money to express their views about
issues and candidates. This was the right decision because
democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some
but for all. As Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority,
concluded: ‘Under our law and our tradition it seems
stranger than fiction for our Government to make
political speech a crime.’”
—U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Republican leader
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL’S VIEW
20 WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
Wikimediacommons
21. creativecommons.org/theresathompsoncreativecommons.org/vancouverfilmschool
WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED 21
FEDERAL OVERSIGHT
Currently, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) tracks campaign finance
donations and spending. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) will also be involved in tracking such expenditures
when made by public corporations. Under SEC rules, corporations generally must
disclose “major events” to shareholders. According to section 212 of the proposed
DISCLOSE legislation, if a covered organization makes a disbursement for
campaign-related activity, the CEO must file a statement with the FEC certifying
that the expenditure was not made in coordination with a candidate, that funds
designated by the donor that aren’t to be used for campaign-related activity have not
been used for any campaign-related activity, and that the spending has been fully
disclosed and made in compliance with the law.
22. 22 WHITE PAPER: AMERICAN COMPANIES UNLIMITED
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has ruled to allow corporations, even those that are owned by
foreign companies, to spend unlimited amounts of money on airing commercials and
documentaries in support of or opposition to a political candidate. The ability to air
commercials right up to the day of an election will change how candidates and their
campaigns can and need to respond to attack advertisements in print, broadcast and
online, as well as get-out-the-vote strategies.
There is no doubt that there will be more money spent than ever by corporations and
nonprofits in 2012 presidential and congressional primary and general election
advertisements and message campaigns. Corporations should plan ahead and know
how best to get their message or cause heard during these important elections. Many
corporations should be tracking key races for U.S. Congress and Senate and state
races in order to affect primary and general elections. As they develop their
communications outreach strategies, they must be mindful of their tactics so that
they don’t adversely affect their business or create public backlash against their
corporation. In addition, corporations must know the election law and work
independently from candidates’ committees.
creativecommons.org/uhuru1701
23. This white paper is the latest thought leadership pursuit by Euro RSCG
Worldwide over the past decade (and more) to address issues of national
importance in the United States and how they affect consumers and
brands.
In August 2001, Euro RSCG wanted to find out what exactly the
“American way of life” was at the start of a new century, so we asked a
random sample of 500 Americans online, aged 21 to 54, their feelings
about the United States, among other topics. The white paper based on the
data, called “American Audit,” says that in order to understand America, “one must first
understand its citizens—and the dramatic shifts that are helping to reshape the national culture.”
It features not only analysis but also implications for marketers.
Then in April 2010, Euro RSCG Worldwide PR and Euro RSCG Life, the public relations arm and
the health-focused communications network of Euro RSCG, commissioned two surveys to try to
gauge the mood of Americans on such hot-button issues as healthcare, the economy, education, jobs
and the political direction of the country. One survey questioned people nationwide; the other polled
residents of the bellwether state of Connecticut (which ultimately saw a Democratic sweep in the
2010 midterm elections, the opposite of the national trend, and thus worthy of our close study). The
resulting “U.S. Mind and Mood Report” shows a new normal: fear and anxiety replacing confidence
and hope. Optimism was out and pessimism was in. To see the data and our implications, please go
to eurorscgpr.com and look under “Brain Food.”
For “American Companies Unlimited,” Euro RSCG Worldwide wanted to help companies understand
their options and the facts about political- and issues-related advertising in the face of a landmark
Supreme Court decision and new legislation. Companies large and small will need to be familiar
with the rules before the 2012 elections.
Through such research and analysis, we are addressing topics that are not only imperative to our
clients and our own growth but are also driving news about the future. The studies are places to
listen and learn. They’re propelling momentum for companies, brands and causes. They’re satisfying
the new value exchange, where consumers want brands that listen, converse and enable them.
Please join us in the conversation.
CEO
Euro RSCG Worldwide PR, North America
200 Madison Avenue, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10016
www.eurorscgpr.com
P: 212-367-6811
E: marian.salzman@eurorscg.com
T: @mariansalzman
Marian Salzman