From: Bill Maurer <wmaurer@ij.org>
To: Craig Holman <holman@aol.com>; john.k.tanner <john.k.tanner@gmail.com>; election-law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 9:22 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] Press Release: Story of Citizens United
Craig,
Another (serious)
question. Under any of the Amendments, would Congress be able to pass a
law that says, “It shall be a crime punishable by five years imprisonment
or a fine of not less than $10,000, or both, for any corporations that produce any
electioneering communication in favor of the re-election of President Barack Obama
or the election or re-election of any member of the United States Senate or
House of Representatives who is a member of the Democratic Party.”
If the amendment’s purpose is to remove the protections of the First
Amendment from corporate speech, why couldn’t Congress pass a law that
punishes only corporate speech of a certain viewpoint or supporting a certain
candidate? If the First Amendment does not apply, then the First
Amendment’s prohibition on viewpoint-based restrictions would not as
well, right?
Thanks,
Bill
From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On
Behalf Of Craig Holman
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 2:25 PM
To: john.k.tanner@gmail.com; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Press Release: Story of Citizens United
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 2:25 PM
To: john.k.tanner@gmail.com; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Press Release: Story of Citizens United
From:
John Tanner <john.k.tanner@gmail.com>
To: Craig Holman <holman@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] Press Release: Story of Citizens United
To: Craig Holman <holman@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] Press Release: Story of Citizens United
Craig,
Re the proposed constitutional
amendment, how would the proponents define "the press" -- and
shouldn't that be in the text of the amendment?
John
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi John:
Public Citizen understands that when it comes to amending the First Amendment (especially the First Amendment), the language must be crafted carefully and thoughtfully. The groups that are currently involved in a constitutional amendment campaign have not yet agreed on final language. We plan on holding an academic conference to hash out the actual wording. The language cited by Sean is a constitutional amendment that was introduced by Rep. Donna Edwards, which is not bad, but the language Public Citizen so far prefers is given below.
Hi John:
Public Citizen understands that when it comes to amending the First Amendment (especially the First Amendment), the language must be crafted carefully and thoughtfully. The groups that are currently involved in a constitutional amendment campaign have not yet agreed on final language. We plan on holding an academic conference to hash out the actual wording. The language cited by Sean is a constitutional amendment that was introduced by Rep. Donna Edwards, which is not bad, but the language Public Citizen so far prefers is given below.
Frequently
Asked
Questions
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on January
21, 2010 in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations
have the same First Amendment rights as people, and that they can spend
unlimited amounts of money on elections. We think corporations aren’t
people and should not be able to trample democracy. One key way to overturn
this decision is through a constitutional amendment, which Public Citizen will
pursue. Below are some questions you may have about such an amendment.
Q: What would an amendment say?
A: We’ve suggested a couple of
possibilities at this point. One would state:
The freedoms of speech and the press, and the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances, as protected by this Constitution, shall not encompass the speech, association, or other activities of any corporation or other artificial entity created for business purposes, except for a corporation or entity whose business is the publication or broadcasting of information, when such corporation or entity is engaged in that business. A corporation or other artificial entity created for business purposes includes a corporation or entity that, although not itself engaged in business pursuits, receives the majority of its funding from other corporations or artificial entities created for business purposes.
Another possibility would be:
Congress and the States may make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the speech and association of corporations and other artificial entities created for business purposes. This article shall not authorize restrictions not otherwise permissible on the freedom of speech or of the press enjoyed by a corporation or entity whose business is the publication or broadcasting of information, when such corporation or entity is engaged in that business. A corporation or other artificial entity created for business purposes includes a corporation or entity that, although not itself engaged in business pursuits, receives the majority of its funding from other corporations or artificial entities created for business purposes.
These two possibilities would have
somewhat different implications in practice, but both would permit Congress to
regulate political spending by business corporations. There are other possible
approaches. These suggestions are just the beginning of what must be a
thoughtful discussion to determine the best language to protect real
people’s right to speak freely and to protect the press from government
censorship, while making clear that these rights do not extend to
corporations’ speech (except for speech by the media).
Q: What will be the affect of this amendment on the media? Will they keep their First Amendment rights, even though they are corporations?
A: The amendment language that we will
suggest would not affect the media. Members of the media would retain their
full First Amendment rights when they are engaged in publishing, broadcasting
and similar activities. Just like other corporations, however, they would not
have the right to sponsor campaign ads or make campaign contributions.
Q: Why can’t Congress address the problem of unlimited corporate spending in elections?
A: The problem we face now is that the
Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to extend the First Amendment
rights of real people to corporations. Congress cannot overturn a court
decision based on the Constitution.
That’s not to say there
aren’t things that Congress can and should do – like institute
public financing for federal elections, which will give candidates the means to
respond to unlimited corporate election spending, and put in place protections
for shareholders so that corporate funds aren’t lavished on political
campaigns without the consent of the real owners of the corporations. But those
laws can only accomplish so much, and one thing they can’t do is directly
limit corporate political expenditures.
Q: Please explain more about the types of reforms Congress can address.
A: We are pursuing several reforms.
Public financing of elections, a shareholder protection act and a
constitutional amendment go together as a package response to rein in the
excessive influence that unrestricted, massive corporate expenditures can exert
over our democracy. A constitutional amendment offers the long-term solution to
address the other damaging effects on our society of treating corporations as
if they’re entitled to the same rights to express themselves as real
people.
Q: What does it take to get a constitutional amendment passed?
A: There are a few ways to do it. An
amendment has to be proposed either by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress,
or else by a constitutional convention convened when the legislatures of 2/3 of
the states so request. The amendment has to be ratified either by the
legislatures of 3/4 of the states, or by conventions in 3/4 of the states,
depending on which means of ratification Congress proposes. All of the
amendments to the Constitution, of which there are now 27, were proposed by
Congress, and all but one were ratified by state legislatures. The convention
route has never been used for proposing an amendment, and was used only once
for ratifying an amendment (the 21st, which eliminated Prohibition).
Q: How long does the amendment process take?
A: That’s hard to say. The first 10
amendments (called the Bill of Rights) were proposed and ratified within a
period of two-and-a-half years. Most successful amendments have taken one to
two years, although the amendment authorizing the income tax took almost four.
Prohibition was ratified 13 months after it was proposed by Congress, and the
amendment repealing it took only 11 months from proposal by Congress to
ratification. The 18-year-old vote amendment was ratified in fewer than four
months.
The most recent amendment to the
Constitution – the 27th Amendment, prohibiting congressional pay raises
from going into effect until after another congressional election – took
more than 200 years to ratify: It was proposed together with the Bill of Rights
and ratified in 1992.
Congress sometimes puts time limits on
the ratification process. (The constitutionality of those time limits is itself
debatable). The Equal Rights Amendment had a time limit and failed to win
ratification after 10 years, as did an amendment to give congressional
representation to the District of
Columbia.
Q: Will this amendment affect union activities?
A: No.
Q: What is Public Citizen’s involvement in this case?
A: Public Citizen’s Scott Nelson is
one of the attorneys representing the key congressional sponsors of the
McCain-Feingold law and co-authored their amicus brief.
Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: (202) 454-5182
CEL: (202) 905-7413
FAX: (202) 547-7392
Holman@aol.com
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: (202) 454-5182
CEL: (202) 905-7413
FAX: (202) 547-7392
Holman@aol.com
-----Original
Message-----
From: John Tanner <john.k.tanner@gmail.com>
To: Craig Holman <holman@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] Press Release: Story of Citizens United
From: John Tanner <john.k.tanner@gmail.com>
To: Craig Holman <holman@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] Press Release: Story of Citizens United
Craig,
Re the proposed constitutional
amendment, how would the proponents define "the press" -- and
shouldn't that be in the text of the amendment?
John
John
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Craig
Holman <holman@aol.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Below is today's press release providing a brief video that discusses the constitutional amendment campaign by Public Citizen, People for the American Way and Free Speech for People to address the Citizens United decision.
I like it -- a little animation can say a lot.
PUBLIC CITIZEN PRESS RELEASE:
Contact:
ALLISON COOK, Story of Stuff Project
213.507.4713, allison@storyofstuff.org
ANGELA BRADBERY, Public Citizen
202.588.7741, abradbery@citizen.org
VIRAL VIDEO: Story of Stuff Project takes on corporate political influence in new online movie, joins calls for constitutional amendment
The Story of Citizens United v. FEC: Why Democracy Only Works When People Are in Charge
Washington, D.C. - March 1, 2011 - The crisis of corporate influence over American democracy is the latest subject of award-winning Internet filmmaker, Annie Leonard, who on March 1st will release The Story of Citizens United v. FEC, an animated short.
Leonard, who directs The Story of Stuff Project, was inspired to make the film by the disastrous 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC that permitted corporations to spend freely to influence American elections. The 8-minute film, available on March 1st at www.storyofcitizensunited.org, places corporate influence--not bad politicians--at the heart of Americans’ low confidence in the political process.
The movie explores the history of the American corporation and corporate political spending, the appropriate roles of citizens and for-profit corporations in a democracy and the toxic impact the Citizens United decision has already had on our political process. It ends with a call to amend the U.S. Constitution to confirm that people--not corporations--make the decisions in a democracy.
“Getting corporations out of our democracy is critical to making progress on a huge range of issues that we Americans care about, from good jobs to clean air to safe products,” said Leonard. “Unless we act, those concerns will take even more of a backseat to the concerns of Walmart, Exxon, and Dow than they do now.”
A Hart Research Associates poll released in January found that nearly four in five Americans (79 percent) support the passage of an amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people, thus giving Congress the authority to limit the amount of money corporations can spend on elections. The Story of Citizens United v. FEC is being released to support the growing movement for a constitutional amendment.
“A year after the Supreme Court’s abominable Citizens United decision, we have overwhelming evidence of the damage done to our democracy - and clear signals of worse threats to come,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, and a content advisor on the movie. “In the 2010 elections, corporations and the super rich funneled a reported $300 million through so-called ‘independent’ organizations to run attack ads and advance corporate agendas. And 2010 was just practice for 2012. If we are going to rescue democracy and re-establish the principle that corporations shouldn’t be able to buy elections, we must have a constitutional amendment to overturn the heinous Citizens United decision.”
On the evening of release, The Story of Stuff Project will hold over 500 house parties around the country for participants to learn more about the Supreme Court’s decision and to organize in support of a constitutional amendment.
The Story of Citizens United v. FEC companion website (www.storyofcitizensunited.org) will serve as an interactive launch pad for information and activism. The site offers viewers additional educational resources, including an annotated script and FAQs, as well as ways to get involved in the constitutional amendment campaigns of Public Citizen, Free Speech for People and People for the American Way.
Kicking off Season Two, The Story of Citizens United v. FEC is the first in an anticipated series of three new movies from The Story of Stuff Project in 2011. Season Two will tell the stories behind The Story of Stuff-what makes our economic system tick, who pays, who benefits and how can we turn it around. The Project’s three Season One movies-The Story of Bottled Water, The Story of Cosmetics and The Story of Electronics-have together been viewed more than 2.3
million times online. The original film The Story of Stuff, released in December 2007, has been viewed more than 15 million times.
Below is today's press release providing a brief video that discusses the constitutional amendment campaign by Public Citizen, People for the American Way and Free Speech for People to address the Citizens United decision.
I like it -- a little animation can say a lot.
PUBLIC CITIZEN PRESS RELEASE:
Contact:
ALLISON COOK, Story of Stuff Project
213.507.4713, allison@storyofstuff.org
ANGELA BRADBERY, Public Citizen
202.588.7741, abradbery@citizen.org
VIRAL VIDEO: Story of Stuff Project takes on corporate political influence in new online movie, joins calls for constitutional amendment
The Story of Citizens United v. FEC: Why Democracy Only Works When People Are in Charge
Washington, D.C. - March 1, 2011 - The crisis of corporate influence over American democracy is the latest subject of award-winning Internet filmmaker, Annie Leonard, who on March 1st will release The Story of Citizens United v. FEC, an animated short.
Leonard, who directs The Story of Stuff Project, was inspired to make the film by the disastrous 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC that permitted corporations to spend freely to influence American elections. The 8-minute film, available on March 1st at www.storyofcitizensunited.org, places corporate influence--not bad politicians--at the heart of Americans’ low confidence in the political process.
The movie explores the history of the American corporation and corporate political spending, the appropriate roles of citizens and for-profit corporations in a democracy and the toxic impact the Citizens United decision has already had on our political process. It ends with a call to amend the U.S. Constitution to confirm that people--not corporations--make the decisions in a democracy.
“Getting corporations out of our democracy is critical to making progress on a huge range of issues that we Americans care about, from good jobs to clean air to safe products,” said Leonard. “Unless we act, those concerns will take even more of a backseat to the concerns of Walmart, Exxon, and Dow than they do now.”
A Hart Research Associates poll released in January found that nearly four in five Americans (79 percent) support the passage of an amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people, thus giving Congress the authority to limit the amount of money corporations can spend on elections. The Story of Citizens United v. FEC is being released to support the growing movement for a constitutional amendment.
“A year after the Supreme Court’s abominable Citizens United decision, we have overwhelming evidence of the damage done to our democracy - and clear signals of worse threats to come,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, and a content advisor on the movie. “In the 2010 elections, corporations and the super rich funneled a reported $300 million through so-called ‘independent’ organizations to run attack ads and advance corporate agendas. And 2010 was just practice for 2012. If we are going to rescue democracy and re-establish the principle that corporations shouldn’t be able to buy elections, we must have a constitutional amendment to overturn the heinous Citizens United decision.”
On the evening of release, The Story of Stuff Project will hold over 500 house parties around the country for participants to learn more about the Supreme Court’s decision and to organize in support of a constitutional amendment.
The Story of Citizens United v. FEC companion website (www.storyofcitizensunited.org) will serve as an interactive launch pad for information and activism. The site offers viewers additional educational resources, including an annotated script and FAQs, as well as ways to get involved in the constitutional amendment campaigns of Public Citizen, Free Speech for People and People for the American Way.
Kicking off Season Two, The Story of Citizens United v. FEC is the first in an anticipated series of three new movies from The Story of Stuff Project in 2011. Season Two will tell the stories behind The Story of Stuff-what makes our economic system tick, who pays, who benefits and how can we turn it around. The Project’s three Season One movies-The Story of Bottled Water, The Story of Cosmetics and The Story of Electronics-have together been viewed more than 2.3
million times online. The original film The Story of Stuff, released in December 2007, has been viewed more than 15 million times.
Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: (202) 454-5182
CEL: (202) 905-7413
FAX: (202) 547-7392
Holman@aol.com
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: (202) 454-5182
CEL: (202) 905-7413
FAX: (202) 547-7392
Holman@aol.com
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law