Tag Archives: Policy

CONGRESS: constitutional amendment introduced to overturn Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending on politics

by

6

Lead In

The Supreme Court ruled last year that corporations are persons, for the purpose of the First Amendment, which have a free speech constitutional right to tap corporate treasuries and spend unlimited corporate funds on politics. A constitutional amendment has been introduced in the House to overturn the decision.

The current United States Supreme Court, the h...

Image via Wikipedia

Justices of the Supreme Court

The Amendment raises several important policy questions: (a) whether corporations will voluntarily limit their political spending in the 2012 Elections until the fate of the Amendment is resolved by Congress; and, (b) whether the candidates for President will voluntarily impose contribution limits on corporate contributions to their campaigns?

The political question is whether introduction of the Amendment is, as stated in the article, “one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact” on national policy.

Media Quote

*  *  *Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.

Source: Read THINK PROGRESS

Background

The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is unprecedented in American jurisprudence and national politics.It  could unleash unlimited corporate expenditures of treasury funds into the political process without any comments by shareholders. That could result in billions of dollars of heretofore untapped and unavailable corporate cash pouring into elections.

One view is that the full impact of the decision, authorizing an unprecedented and historic expansion of corporate political advocacy directed at policy decisions, and to the election or defeat of candidates for political office, could be devastating.

Another view, as articulated by Dr. Stephen R. Weissman, a former associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute, is that the “decision is unlikely to change the political situation on the ground very much.” Read Los Angeles Times, Opinion (January 28, 2010).

MJB’s Take

The decision in Citizens United could usher into the mix new era campaign  technologies, communications strategies and fierce rapid responses by savvy politicians to hits from corporate sponsored political ads on a range of policy issues some of which may not directly concern the business operations of corporations.

Corporations will raise their profiles, advocate and engage in politics by hitting politicians for their  positions on policy issues. Politicians in turn will intuitively respond and hit back.

Increased corporate spending for political advertising will generate significant mainstream political media coverage of the controversies. The coverage in one sense may heighten the public’s interest; but, in another sense, the coverage will diminish the quality of the information disseminated to the public by the media which generally should empower them to take part more effectively in the political process by acting on what, but for the portal to portal coverage of controversies, otherwise would be unbiased and quality information.

Of course, the clear rebuttal to that argument is that heightened public interest is a good thing because it expands the base of stakeholders in the game on the political playing field. Hence, the political take from the Occupy Wall Street movement which is apparently grafted into the title of the proposed Amendement.

In addition, it can be argued that the more intense the controversies, the policy debates, the attacks on politicians and the  media coverage, the better for the political process in general.  Savvy politicians and candidates for political office can take advantage of the new-found field of political play, expensed for the most part by corporate political money, and prosper.

The clearest example to illustrate the point is the low-budget but effective campaign by Herman Cain. Cain was able to use low-budget campaign tools, campaign strategies and the Internet to fight back against a barrage of mainstream media coverage, which for the most part was negative; take part in the debates on policy issues; and, position himself as a contender to be taken seriously for the GOP nomination.

Certainly, there will be  legitimate concerns expressed about the possible corrosive influence of corporate political money on policy making and the outcomes of elections. But, good politicians should be ready to hit back if they are attacked just as Herman Cain has been able to do by employing new media tools and strategies.

Related Coverage & Web Articles

Corporations may not necessarily be anxious to begin spending corporate treasury funds on politics because of the uncertainty whether the Amendment will be passed and adopted by the States paticularly if the spending decisions lack shareholder approval. Shareholders are bound to sue executives should such spending decisions be made.

Candidates may need to consider voluntarily imposing limits on corporate contributions to their campaigns. Although the expenditures in question technically are independent expenditures made without input of campaigns, the court of public opinion is bound to connect them. So it may be better for candidates to get in front of the issue and potential controversy by initiating voluntary measures.

Among other things, the movement of the 99 Percenters could have influenced the decision of the Representative to introduce the Amendment

.

End Notes

Thank you for visiting the site, and reading the content.

Please feel free to ask questions, make comments, or reply to any of the questions or comments posted.

Generally, we will respond to all questions and comments.

Coke a $13M parks contributor complains; parks boss disposes of bottle ban

by

3

Story:  The National Park Service  freezes proposed government regulatory ban on the sale of disposable waters battles in the Grand Canyon National Park after Coca Cola complained.

Coca Cola had contributed $13 Million to the national parks.

Image credit: Richard Perry/New Tork Times

MSNBC.msn.com referenced a New York Times report (quote)

Weary of plastic litter, Grand Canyon National Park officials were in the final stages of imposing a ban on the sale of disposable water bottles in the Grand Canyon late last year when the nation’s parks chief abruptly blocked the plan after conversations with Coca-Cola, a major donor to the National Park Foundation.

Stephen P. Martin, the architect of the plan and the top parks official at the Grand Canyon, said his superiors told him two weeks before its Jan. 1 start date that Coca-Cola, which distributes water under the Dasani brand and has donated more than $13 million to the parks, had registered its concerns about the bottle ban through the foundation, and that the project was being tabled.

xx   xx   xx

He added that “reducing and eliminating disposable plastic bottles is one element of our green plan. This is a process, and we are at the beginning of it.”

Source of Quote:  Felicity Barringer, “Parks Chief Blocked Plan for Grand Canyon Bottle Ban,” NEW YORK TIMES

Undue influence: Of course not! The NYT story notes (quote):

Neil J. Mulholland, president of the foundation, said that a representative of Coca-Cola had reached out to him late in the process to inquire about the reasons for the water bottle ban and how it would work.

“There was not an overt statement made to me that they objected to the ban,” Mr. Mulholland said, adding, “There was never anything inferred by Coke that if this ban happens, we’re losing their support.”

A spokeswoman for Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Susan Stribling, said the company would rather help address the plastic litter problem by increasing the availability of recycling programs.

Limiting personal choice:  Don’t want to do that! The NYT story continues (quote):

She also characterized the bottle ban as limiting personal choice. “You’re not allowing people to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume,” she said.

A big waste problem:  Sure seems to be! The NYT story continues (quote):

Discarded plastic bottles account for about 30 percent of the park’s total waste stream according to the park service. Mr. Martin said the bottles are “the single biggest source of trash” found inside the canyon.

Concern for public safety: What? The rest of the NYT story (quote):

[Parks ChiefJon]Jarvis said that he had not heard of the ban until Nov. 17, and felt that an action by Grand Canyon park would have more impact than Zion’s. He added: “My decision to hold off the ban was not influenced by Coke, but rather the service-wide implications to our concessions contracts,and frankly the concern for public safety in a desert park.”

MJB’s Take

>  Government environmental policy and waste regulation at it’s best!

> “Things Go Better [For] Coke!”

Other Web Coverage

     >  Coca-Cola Successfully Pressured Grand Canyon Into Abandoning Bottle Ban  (businessinsider.com)

     > National Parks Chief Blocks Plastic Bottle Ban At Grand Canyon  (naturalhistorywanderings.com)

     > NYT: Did Coke get Grand Canyon bottle ban axed?  (msnbc.msn.com)

     > Report: Bottle Ban Ended After Talks With Coke  (abcnews.go.com)

     > Report: Bottle ban ended after talks with Coke  (sfgate.com)

Small Business Political Money & Free Speech-Will Their Political Activism Lead To Gushers Of Political Cash And Campaign Ads?

by

2

After considering Ted Olsen’s comments in The Wall Street Journal about the impact of the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is clear that the free speech rights of small business and their entrepreneurs were as much intended targets of the decision as those of major corporations. Olsen, the lawyer for Citizens United, said:

 The decisions that the Court today overruled rested on the faulty premise that political speech can be restricted in order to prevent corporate money from “distorting” political discourse. In fact, the vast majority of corporations are either nonprofit advocacy groups–like Citizens United–or small businesses. Far from “distorting” the political process, the speech of these corporations reflects the views of their members or the entrepreneurial individuals who formed the corporation. Permitting these individuals to have a voice in the political process adds an important perspective to the public debate and enables individuals of limited means to band together to counterbalance the political speech of the super-rich. McCain-Feingold silenced those speakers, and, as the Court concluded, was therefore impossible to reconcile with the First Amendment. 

That was a mouthful. Link: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/21/free-speech-v-democracy-rounding-up-the-citizens-united-reactions/tab/article/

Apparently, Olsen envisions significant and substantially increased levels of activism in policy making and politics by thousands upon thousands of small businesses and entrepreneurs. Those are the legions of “S” Corps, LLC’s, LLP’s and their owners. For the most part, they have not been players in politics: they have not set up PACS; they do not have lobbyists; and, have not spent money on political ads.

But, they will have a lots of political money, heretofore untapped gushers of political cash in the millions of dollars, to spread around on the political playing field and deploy for all types of public affairs advocacy; to influence policy; and, to take sides and spend those millions on ads for political candidates they like or dislike influencing the outcomes of elections.

In that respect, whatever the original intent of the litigation was, the Citizens United decision has fostered a new, unchartered and possibly unlimited frontier for the deployment of political money and advertising dollars spent lavishly not only by major corporations, long term players in politics; but also, by small businesses and their owners, the new entrants.

 That conceivably will revolutionize, and perhaps even radicalize, politics, policy making and election outcomes well beyond the bounds as we now them!

Corporate Free Speech Decision May Usher In A New Era Of Political Rapid Responses & Heightened Public Interest To Corporate Activism

by

0

The SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission could unleash nearly unlimited expenditures of corporate treasury funds in politics.

One view is that the full impact of the decision probably will not be limited to an unprecedented expansion of corporate political advocacy directed at policy and the election or defeat of candidates for political office.  Another view, as articulated by Dr. Stephen R. Weissman, a former associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute, is that the “decision is unlikely to change the political situation on the ground very much.” Los Angeles Times, Opinion (January 28, 2010). Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/opinion/la-oe-weissman28-2010jan28

In any event, the decision in Citizens United is also likely to usher in a new era of political rapid responses by savvy politicians on a range of policy issues affecting corporations.

As corporations raise their profiles, advocate and engage in politics by hitting politicians for their  positions on policy issues, savvy politicians intuitively will respond and hit back. Increased spending for corporate speech and political advertising should generate significant media coverage. That spate of news articles, commentaries and editorials on corporate public affairs matters ostensibly will heighten the public’s interest.

Heightened public interest expands the political playing field. The more intense the debates, the attacks on politicians and the  media coverage, the better for the politics in general.  Savvy politicians and candidates for political office can take advantage of the new found political play, expensed for the most part by corporate political money, and prosper!

Certainly, there will be  legitimate concerns expressed about the possible corrosive influence of corporate political money on policy making and the outcomes of elections.

But, good politicians should be ready to hit back if they are attacked by corporations. 

And, shrewd candidates for political office should position themselves to take advantage of corporate political activism.

Public Official Liability v. Corporate Free Speech-Is Liability For Damages In Politics A Concern?

by

0

The recent opinion filed by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission certainly raises valid concerns about the influence that corporate dollars may have on campaign finance, campaign finance reform and political campaigns particularly this election year which will be dominated by federal midterm Congressional elections and state gubernatorial races. One commentator argues that the Supreme Court has “[told] corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.” Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen, “Citizens United v. FEC:Shed A Tear for Democracy,”  Huffington Post (February 1, 2010). LINK: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-weissman/shed-a-tear-for-democracy_b_432079.html

The Court ruled that under the First Amendment, there is such a thing as a corporate free speech right which allows corporations to freely spend their corporate treasury dollars speaking about and advocating the defeat or election of political candidates. No doubt, the campaign finance and campaign finance reform landscapes have been altered in a dramatic and radical fashion.

But, buried in that decision is a legal issue that could be more troubling than the legal decision about the scope and impact of corporate  free speech in policy making, public affairs, lobbying and politics. It’s whether elected officials and their appointees are now exposed to liability for damages because of actions they take or decisions they make which corporations may disagree with? In other words, will those actions and decisions now be subject not only to scrutiny but also to awards for damages in lawsuits under the First  Amendment?

Lest we forget. the Court long ago held that corporations are persons that have the same civil rights protections as people. Corporations have protected Due Process rights and Equal Protection rights along with the First Amendment rights discussed in the opinion.

So what’s to stop corporations from bringing  massive liability suits against politicians or agency officials who make  executive decisions, take administrative actions, award procurement contracts or initiate any other governmental actions that corporations simply don’t like?

Clearly, corporations are now empowered to spend millions advocating the defeat of the politicians during elections. But, are they also empowered to seek damages against the politicians or their appointees for violations of  their free speech rights or political advocacy for the actions taken or the decisions made which are regarded as being adverse to their  interests?

The potential expansion of liability and the budget busting potential of such liability should be more of a concern than whether corporations will now have an expanded right to spend money speaking about and advocating the defeat or election of politicians.