By David Swanson
The DISCLOSE Act, a bill passed by the House that would regulate corporate election spending was blocked in the Senate on Thursday by a filibuster -- momentum is building to eliminate that anti-democratic tool.
davidswanson's blog
The Next Senator from Target Corporation
Here's a type of story that may become so common it's no longer a story, or those pushing back and working for structural reform may prevail:
Target Corp. spending company money on candidates
By MARTIGA LOHN (AP) –
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Here's something Target Corp. isn't advertising in its Sunday circular: The discount retailer is now a major donor to a group backing the Republican candidate for Minnesota governor.
And that's not sitting well with every Target shopper.
New Groups Aim to Spend Big on Election Ads
By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two new groups - one Republican-leaning, the other pro-Democratic - seeking to capitalize on a Supreme Court ruling allowing the use of unlimited donations for ads targeting candidates have gotten the go-ahead from election officials.
The Federal Election Commission on Thursday approved plans by the conservative Club for Growth and by Democratic activists to collect big contributions for ads on candidates. Both say the committees set up to run the ads will disclose their donors and spending to the FEC in publicly available reports.
Corporate Control of Our Democracy: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
By Radhika Balakrishnan and James Heintz, Huffington Post
This January the U.S. Supreme Court issued a shattering ruling that will intensify corporate influence in our democracy to an unprecedented degree. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that government restrictions on corporate election spending are unconstitutional because such restrictions violated corporations' right to free speech as set out in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. In effect, the Court was evoking a core civil right to advance corporate power. This is a dangerous precedent, one that will undermine the obligation of the government to respect and protect human rights by giving corporations full reign to advance their own interests in the democratic - yet increasingly plutocratic - United States.
The idea that corporations have the same rights as you and me comes from a Supreme Court decision over 120 years ago - Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) - the focus of which was whether railroads could deduct their debts from the value of their property for tax purposes. The Supreme Court laid down a much broader ruling, effectively stating that corporations should enjoy the same equal protections under the law as individuals. Equal protection under the law was spelled out in the 14th Amendment which was adopted following the Civil War. The original motivation for the amendment had little to do with advancing corporate influence. It overturned the Dred Scott decision (in which slaves were denied citizenship) and laid the groundwork for ending segregation in the U.S. and subsequent civil rights laws.
READ THE REST AT Huffington Post
How Often Does Each SCOTUS Justice Side With the US Chamber of Commerce?
This graphic comes from a good report:
Three questions with Jeffrey Clements
By Patrick Ball/Staff Writer, GateHouse News Service
Concord — The Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act is strong start but doesn’t fix the problem created by the Citizens United decision, according to Concord lawyer Jeffrey Clements.
Massachusetts Legislators Back Free Speech for People (Not Corporate Persons)
The corporatocracy rolls on in a wave of black goo, drowning pelicans and our representative republic. Steps that could limit CEO pay or require disclosure of corporate election funding are killed or stalled.
But good news exists as well and it comes from the states. Today it's Massachusetts. This is a model of how we will save this republic.