I love being at the polls during an election in my town, where true democracy is still vibrant, a testimony to the belief that voting matters. I love the scene of a small town showing up to vote: parents bringing their kids into the voting booth, fishermen and millworkers talking along the wall, women proudly carrying babies in buntings, hugs among good friends, bursts of laughter from the waiting line, talk of friends’ health and the church steeple project.
I love to watch the loyal women in their tight grey curls checking the voter registrations, people of all stripes slipping their paper ballots into the old wooden box and new voters registering to vote, preserving same-day voting rights here in Maine. I can feel good about this. It’s authentic democracy.
But this past election, I felt less sure that the votes of these good people would matter. It seems what mattered most this time was how much money was spent on the campaigns: For the first time ever, more than $1.245 billion dollars were spent by Super-PACs and wealthy individuals promoting their interests. It was the most costly election in history, testimony to the belief that advertising works.
This is a direct result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision that gave corporations the same inalienable rights as natural persons in the Citizens United v. The Federal Elections Commission ruling. Think of it: Undisclosed wealthy individuals and their corporate allies (the “1 percent”) can spend uncontrolled, limitless capital on lobbyists and advertising that promotes their for-profit agenda over the good of the public. In essence, the Supreme Court ruled that money equals speech, which tips the scales to no money equals no speech.
To my mind, this underscores the end of what was meant to be a nation “of the people, by the people, for the people.” The reality is that we live in a “corporatocracy” — a nation of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. “Money talks” is more true than ever, and free speech isn’t free anymore. We all know how Super-PACs churned out attack ads and dominated the media. If you don’t know who’s donating the money, you can’t know what interests they are really representing, and you can’t trust the message for its truth or consequences. The only way to change this situation is through an amendment to the Constitution.
When Clean Elections Maine and Public Citizen launched a postcard campaign to start the ball rolling for an amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, I signed up to collect signatures for the post cards. They read, “Dear lawmaker, I call upon you to support a U.S. constitutional amendment that would allow us to regulate the raising and spending of campaign funds and keep our government accountable to the people, not corporate and wealthy donors.” Across the state, more than 10,000 signed postcards were collected on Election Day.
It’s just the beginning. To amend the Constitution is a long, hard process and requires solid grassroots support. The route used for most of the 27 constitutional amendments passed is for state legislators to request that two-thirds of Congress pass a resolution to amend the Constitution, the final wording to be worked out through bipartisan cooperation. Then it must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
That brings us back to the grassroots and the post cards. It took from 1848 to 1920 for organized groups to win the vote for women. With “social media” and modern technologies, this one shouldn’t take that long, especially since polls show that 80 percent of Americans oppose the outcome of Citizens United. I urge everyone to join this campaign. Go here to find out what to do: www.mainecleanelections.org, www.citizen.org or www.movetoamend.org.
Nancy Galland, of Stockton Springs, is a retired organic farmer.
Citizens United can be overturned by a different Supreme Court. We simply need one of the five in the conservative majority (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy) to retire and President Obama to name his replacement. The chances of a Kennedy retirement are quite high.
We signed one of those petitions after we voted. How’s it going?
Over 10,000 signatures collected. And more collection activities on the way.
I think the Citizens United decision was a terrible ruling by a way right Supreme Court. This past election was filled with much angst about a system running off the rails. Couple that with other right wing meddling like extreme gerrymandering and a very awesome effort to suppress votes. None of these extreme measures netted much success and Citizens United opened a cash flood gate of hundreds of millions of super PAC dollars that got released from the hands of greedy owners back into our system. The good news is greed got little in return for their expenditures but caused voters to become engaged in an election because the of the steaks being so high. Maybe the real message we sent was our elections are not for sale, but please fell free to spend as much as you want?
That means you want the george soros and hollywood crowd to stop funding their super pacs as well
You’ve sure got the right name. “really_ simple”. Is this the only name you right wingers can dig up? If you do your homework you’ll find out George Soros was a minor contributor compared to the people supporting the Republicans. That being said,George’s money was well spent and the opposition is crying in their wallets. I’m shocked you didn’t throw in a whine or two about unions,you know, the people that fight for fair wages and benefits for “all” Americans.
Dontcha know? The rich buying legislators and their votes to further their exploitation of the public and reap huge profits is good capitalism. The worker trying to get favorable laws to protect their wages is socialism……according to the republican play book, anyway.
less than 12% of Americans are in unions, they don’t even come close to speaking for “all” Americans
Now labor laws certainly do speak for “all” Americans and the system of labor laws we have is in large part due to the unions. The utility of unions to acheive said laws, however, has come and gone. We have the laws and we don’t need the unions anymore.
She didn’t say they “speak” for all Americans, just fight for benefits for all Americans. And the fact that wingers bring up unions in this conversation is proven a weak argument by what you just said… there are only 12% of Americans in unions… (I’ll assume your figure is correct…) They don’t have the same clout as corporations.
The difference is in WHO ( and what) you are spending FOR. Corporate money was spent to OPPOSE OBAMA 7-1 Their spending was very clearly for self interest . And they LOST .
OK so tell me just what “self interest” do you think the Hollywood crowd is “spending” FOR ? …… To make a BIG movie?
definitely CP…
Your username suits you well.
How are your friends the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson doing these days. Rolling around in their money of course (and that’s fine ) but they sure were very unsuccessful trying to buy this election. They must be very upset and angry. They probably are used to getting their way and it backfired in a major way on them this time.
Thank you,the username has the desired affect.
Although I don’t have the pleasure of knowing either Mr Koch, or Mr Adelson. I’m certain niether one of them would have said what is in the link
http://youtu.be/RZ2U6Rl98PM
you tube?….oh now that is impressive!!!
It’s your hero Soros, but here again… really simple….you don’t get it.
If all voters did their homework, it wouldn’t matter how much money was spent on/by the candidates, but I guess that would be asking too much.
Looks like voters DID do their homework. They weren’t easily fooled by slick ads— running 24/7 !!
I disagree. If the voters had done their homework, and understood it, nobody would have voted period.
exactly….right on!
I don’t understand how people can support a government that sends our young service members to die in vain and has no issue with the innocent civilian casualties. Out of sight, out of mind I guess.
Bring back the draft. Then we’ll see who’s ready to send kids off to war. No deferments or missions to get in the way. Not just poor kids with no money for college
I don’t know if we’ll get action on Citizens United, but this past election was comforting — despite the lies pumped out by the PACs and phony “news” organizations like Fox, the truth won out. It does make me smile to know that Karl Rove and his donors literally wasted 300 million and had nothing to show for it.
Which is a very good reason to leave things alone. If you overturn Citizens United. News organizations will be subject to the same law. They are after all corporations so suddenly Free Speech is no more.
their speech wasn’t “free’. it cost them a trillion and it tried to over whelm and silence all other voices. And they lost. .I have mixed opioion.I think the courts ruling was wrong and would support a constitutional ammendment . BUT I also like spending others money and watching other waste their money foolishly. and get a thumping. Lessons are more easily leaned and imprinted when there are natural consequences. Loosing a trillion has to hurt even if you have BILLIONS. Throwing money at a problem doesn’t “solve it.” when the money isn’t used wisely..IF the ends are just the means to the ends must be also..
I think there were several lessons to be learned here. But the thing is did the losers “learn” anything?. It doesn’t appear they did.. Heck it wasn’t their money they foolishly spent,.so they have NO natural consequences..
Democracy can’t be bought . Voters can’t be bought and aren’t foolish. Seats cannot be bought. Casino moguls can’t get a “get out of jail for free card” by trying to buy enough votes and seats to avoid jail —– NO matter how much he spends.
The sadder lessons are that so called “leaders ” CAN be bought and will not hesitate to sell their seat ( and their soul) to the highest bidder to do their bidding ( not ours). We learned how LOW people are wiling to go to “win a race”. .It used to be called un-sportsman like behavior . We learned how easily honesty, as a family value,( or any value at all) is so very easily sold down the river to the highest bidder.
VOTERS learned that there is a whole party who no longer believes “serving the people” is an admirable and desirable goal of government., as they try to recreate democracy and the role of government to their own liking TO benefit their benefactors instead of ‘the people”. We learned a whole party CAN be bought from the bottom on up to the supreme court.. We learned it is best to NEVER EVER VOTE R AGAIN!!!
“The question is whether speech that goes to the very heart of
government should be limited to certain preferred corporations; namely, media corporations. Surely the idea that the First Amendment protects only certain privileged voices should be disturbing to anybody who believes in free speech.”
~~~~~~~~~ Justice Samuel Alito.
If you make an amendment that limits speech for some. It limits speech for all. Do you really want to go down that road?
Your’re right, howerver sadly we are already on that road
So it appears to you and I. To many it would appear that the law wouldn’t affect them, and it wouldn’t….. until it does.
And when it does affect them, they will blindly go along with it
Maybe so. There are a surprisingly large number of sheep out there.
I agree. The problem they will have with a constitutional amendment is precisely what you mention in that passing such an amendment would effectively negate the 1st amendment.
And pardon me for being an American but I will exercise my second amendment right to protect the first amendment from the treasonous acts of these anti-American liberals any day of the week.
Good deal…..Does anyone have any idea how America, became so anti-American.
Well pardon me for being an American and exercising my right to the opinion that you don’t know what you are talking about, and bringing up using 2nd amendment gun ownership rights as a threat against your fellow Americans who happen to agree with me is, well, putting the cart before the horse… Somehow wingers seem to think they have a monopoly on knowing what the Constitution protects and doesn’t protect… any ruling they disagree with doesn’t get sorted out by law, logic, precedent, due process, but resorting to threats of violence against their “un-American” neighbors. But when a ruling violates established law and overturns long held precedents, and a huge portion of the public says, “Now hold on here…”, they are all for it if it serves their narrow winger interests…
Your rhetoric might make you feel like a “real American patriot…” but what it really does is make you look kind of on the fringe…
Nobody is looking to negate the 1st Amendment. Hate to burst your bubble… (well, not really…)
Corporations are not people, they are not individuals. They can be regulated without the free speech of individuals being compromised. Alito’s formulation relies on the notion that corporations are persons with 1st amendment rights. He was wrong to come to that conclusion. So are you…
What about us that are both corporations and individuals according to tax law. Does that mean I can no longer speak? Most small businesses fall into that category.
Should this amendment become part of the Constitution. You are smart enough to realize that this would not be the end of it. There would be a whole raft of case law coming out of it. Are you certain that you will continue to have Free Speech after a few test rulings come down? How about a non-profit petitioning the government for funding like PBS? Are we making exemptions for non-profits?
Can you answer Alito’s point about media corporations and preferential treatment of such? The BDN is a Corporation I believe, They spend money to advance their case. Can they no longer editorialize?
I don’t know how tax law should define or affect your ability to speak. You speak as an individual; that is protected in most cases. Publicly funded campaigns would do away with a great deal of both corruption and the appearance of corruption by too powerful interests influencing elections.
I posted a comment above that addresses a key weakness in CU that pertains to foreign campaign donations, potentially from terrorist organizations. Holder v Humanitarian Law Project is a case that brings up this weakness. Speech is a difficult issue to sort out, but not impossible.
I don’t see that PBS soliciting for operating funds qualifies as a 1st amendment speech issue. PBS provides services, Sesame Street for instance, that don’t necessarily pontificate to directly influence a campaign or election.
Objective reporting shouldn’t be hindered from challenges to speech, and plainly stated editorializing as opposed to thinly veiled opinionating disguised as news reporting (a lot of what Fox News commentary does) should be taken for what it is, editorializing.
And then there are issue advocacy vs campaign speech differences that apparently are defined in law.
I’m not a lawyer, but when my then-seventeen year old daughter heard about the CU decision, without prompting, she came to the conclusion that that was a terrible ruling that gives too much power to those with lots of money. This isn’t hard to understand, although crafting a path through the thicket of what is and should be protected speech might be.
An interesting and complex problem, no doubt.
Regarding Alito:
“As Justice Breyer correctly noted,” Stevens said, “the proposed speech at issue was the kind of political activity to which First Amendment ordinarily offers its strongest protection. [political speech] Nevertheless, under the Chief Justice’s opinion, the fact that the proposed speech would indirectly benefit a terrorist organization provided a sufficient basis for denying it First Amendment protection.”So while the Citizens United majority claimed that political speech must receive sweeping protection regardless of the identity of the speaker, it looks as though the majority is going to have to start creating some categories here.
“Could the Court possibly conclude that expenditures by terrorist or foreign agents in support of a political campaign merit greater First Amendment protection than their actual speech on political issues? I think not. Indeed, I think it likely that when the Court begins to spell out which categories of non-voters should receive the same protections as the not-for-profit Citizens United advocacy group, it will not only exclude terrorist organizations and foreign agents, but also all corporations owned or controlled by non-citizens, and possibly even those in which non-citizens have a substantial ownership interest.”
http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/justice-stevens-reasoned-takedown-of-citizens-united
I don’t agree with limiting free speech, but absent Congress limiting the effect that money has on their legistative agenda, what do you recommend? Is everything okay as it is?
Yes pretty much. The left won this election spending billions and the Republicans lost spending about the same. Free speech.
I have to disagree. I believe more speech is always better, but more money in elections is not. Personally, I would rather see real, aggressive election reform, but Congress deliberately fights it for purely selfish reasons.
My delegation needs to spend more time running the country instead of a majority of their time raising money for themselves and their Parties. That is NOT what I send them there for.
Do you then need a constitutional amendment that might not come out looking like you hope it will, especially after case law muckles onto it?
A constitutional amendment is fighting money with no money! It might have been doable in the 40’s and 50’s when money didn’t trump good sense and there was so much less $$ in politics. But now with every legislator beholding to some deep pocket, this won’t get traction on either side of the aisle. There’s hope that a new SCOTUS might hear a Montana type ‘money corrupts’ case but as long the Chief is Roberts, that’s gonna be a while coming.
You DO understand BIG MONEY LOST , and democracy won, right ? They got their hat handed to them.They are less likely to spend to interfere with democracy in the future.
“They are less likely to spend to interfere with democracy in the future.”
Wow, are you naive or what…
do you have CP, BTW? There are definitely many indications that you do in your writting style and critical thinking ability
If enough State Legislatures passed resolutions and threatened a Constitutional Convention, it gets Congress’s attention pretty quick. A tall order, but not unthinkable. There is a great deal of momentum to address this issue across the country coming from dems, repubs, independents, libertarians… It could happen.
Hooray Nancy. I was getting signatures in my hometown too. Last report was that over 10,000 signatures were collected. Let’s get this done!
you kids did attend civics class in high school correct?
you do realize all amendments to the US Constitution must be originate from the state legislatures, no?
Yes, but citizens can petition the state legislature which is what Maine Citizens for Clean Elections are going about doing. And, actually there are two ways to amend the constitution. And, actually they need to originate in Congress and go to states for ratification or go through a constitutional convention which has never been used.
Sorry (loser) Rmoney – corporations are not “people too”.
Where do I sign?
Yessah
Thank you, Nancy. Excellent piece. Below is a list of Maine towns that have passed non-binding resolutions supporting this effort for a Constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens United decision and the notion that corporations are persons having the same free speech rights as human persons. Corporations are not people; they are legal entities formed by people and the legal charters people draw up to describe the corporation. Corporations should not have the same rights, free speech or otherwise, as the individuals that write their charters. Yet that is exactly what they claim when they spend millions with their legions of lawyers in court cases on a broad range of issues from influencing campaigns and elections, not labeling genetically modified foods, the financialization and commodifying of publicly-owned resources like ground water…
Amherst, Arrowsic, Bangor, Bar Harbor, Bethel, Brooklin, Bucksport, Cranberry Islands, Ellsworth, Fairfield, Freedom, Great Pond, Gouldsboro, Hancock, Lamoine, Leeds, Lewiston, Liberty, Monroe, Mt. Desert, Newcastle, Orland, Penobscot, Portland, Rogue Bluffs, Scarborough, Sedgwick, Shapleigh, Southwest Harbor, Stonington, Sullivan, Tremont, Vassalboro, Vienna, Waterville, Winslow.
The links Nancy provides can give concerned citizens the tools they need to get their own towns to pass similar resolutions. Also lobby your State reps to get on board to pass a resolution through the Maine State Legislature, such as Hawaii, Montana, and Vermont have passed. Here is a list nationwide of resolution initiatives in progress or that have already passed:
https://movetoamend.org/resolutions-map
Everyday citizens CAN make this happen. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
Justice Stevens dissented in the original ruling and gives good reasons to believe the Court itself will have to revisit and overturn its decision. The reason was stated by Obama in his first inaugural speech about the possibility of foreign money entering into US campaigns. Justice Alito mouthed “not true,” but it is likely what the constitutional expert speaking from the podium said will be found true.
Stevens makes the argument this way. Unlimited campaign spending with secret donations opens the door for foreign influence on “campaign speech.” The majority opinion in Citizens United didn’t explicitly address that possibility and when it does, it provides a crack in the edifice of Citizens United. The Court will have to address why in CU it abandoned the idea that the identity of the speaker doesn’t allow regulation of “campaign speech.” Can a terrorist organization by donating secretly and privately obtain “free speech” rights under CU, and influence an election? Yep. When a case arises, and may have already, defining a terrorist organization’s free speech rights, none (I hope, obviously), the identity of ALL seeking rights under CU comes into question, and may be what causes the whole thing to fall apart. If foreign donors are barred, “the identity of some speakers may provide a legally acceptable basis for restricting speech.” That includes non-person corporations… Corporations can’t vote, so why should they have a special right to campaign speech as if they can vote?
Citizens United rests on the notion that the identity of the speaker is not important, and speech that is free doesn’t rely on who the speaker is. It is important who is speaking. A faceless terrorist group, a soul-less corporate entity whose only purpose is to extract profits from the market place and seeks to influence the laws and regulations that maximizes that purpose, or the individual voter?
Update: in the court case “Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the majority held that Congress can bar material support of terrorist groups, even if that support is advice on how to conduct peaceful protests.
“As Justice Breyer correctly noted,” Stevens said, “the proposed speech at issue was the kind of political activity to which First Amendment ordinarily offers its strongest protection. Nevertheless, under the Chief Justice’s opinion, the fact that the proposed speech would indirectly benefit a terrorist organization provided a sufficient basis for denying it First Amendment protection.”
So while the Citizens United majority claimed that political speech must receive sweeping protection regardless of the identity of the speaker, it looks as though the majority is going to have to start creating some categories here.”
http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/justice-stevens-reasoned-takedown-of-citizens-united
Corporations are people,too, my friend
Citizens United is a perversion of free speech. It’s bad enough that out of country influences already have such pull via lobbying, but to give them another route to influence our policies and representatives is too much. Most corporations operate globally and their interests are not always in the best interest of Americans.
Yes, dontbanmebro has a point in that the ignorant and gullible electorate is at the root of many of our problems, though there is no sign that this is going to change.