Latest Developments

Video: Target Ain’t People

In January, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited money in our elections. This video was made in response to Target’s decision to give $150,000 to an anti-gay, anti-worker candidate for the Governor of Minnesota. Watch this video on YouTube
Read More

Blagojevich and Legal Bribery

By SCOTT TUROW Published: August 17, 2010 The New York Times Chicago “With all respect to Wanda Brandstetter, the Constitutional amendment this nation most urgently requires is one that reverses the notion that unrestricted political spending deserves protection as free speech. Without that, who could fault a juror for looking around at contemporary political life
Read More

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
Read More

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.

Read More

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

Read More