Robert Reich – Foreign Cash Is Hijacking American Democracy

20160808_  Robert Reich - Foreign Cash Is Hijacking American Democracy.jpg Robert Reich – Foreign Cash Is Hijacking American Democracy
By Robert Reich, Alternet.org

(August 8, 2016 4:00 p.m.) — The biggest threats to American sovereignty are invisible digital dollars wired into U.S. election campaigns from abroad.

“Without a border, we just don’t have a country,” Donald Trump says repeatedly. For him, the biggest threats to American sovereignty are three-dimensional items that cross our borders, such as unwanted imports and undocumented immigrants.

He’s wrong. The biggest threats to American sovereignty are invisible digital dollars wired into U.S. election campaigns from abroad.

(Read more.)

End Citizens United aggressively seeks campaign finance reform

20160704 1912 End Citizens United aggressively seeks campaign finance reform.jpg End Citizens United aggressively seeks campaign finance reform
By Joe Garofoli, San Fransisco Chronicle

(July 4, 2016 07:12 pm) — In one of his earliest moments of raw candor during the presidential campaign, Donald Trump said that when big donors like him give politicians money, they “do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

“That’s a broken system,” Trump said during a Republican debate back in August. He piled on by mocking his opponents who pandered to the Koch brothers as “puppets” of the billionaire conservative businessmen.

Yet even as the political polar opposites Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont spent the past year railing on about a “rigged” political system that allows wealthy donors outsize influence, campaign finance reform isn’t the kind of sexy issue that drives voters to the polls.

(Read more.)

The Bernie Effect: Five Ways Sanders May Impact the Democractic Party Platform

20160525_0800 Bernie Effect Five Ways Sanders May Impact the Democractic Party Platform.jpg The Bernie Effect: Five Ways Sanders May Impact the Democractic Party Platform
By Samantha Kilgore, Inquisitr

(May 25, 2016 Although it is becoming increasingly clear that Senator Bernie Sanders, despite running a brilliant, odds-defying campaign, will not be able to clinch the Democratic nomination for the presidency, it’s also becoming clear that there will be a long-lasting “Bernie effect,” long after he concedes to Hillary Clinton. Sanders has shown the Democratic establishment that America is, indeed, hungry for change, and open to ideas and policies that were once dismissed as being “too liberal.” Through Sanders’s potential shaping of the Democratic platform, the Bernie effect may change the face of the Democratic party.

In an unprecedented move, meant to spark unity between Sanders’s passionate supporters and Hillary Clinton’s supporters, the Sanders campaign was given five seats on the Democratic Platform Committee. Clinton was give six appointees, and the Democratic National Committee will add an additional four, for a total of 15. The committee will be chaired by Representative Elijah Cummings.

(Read more.)

What to Know: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

20100121_0000 CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION (US 08-2015) Opinion.jpg(Feb. 13, 2016 21:45 EST) Because the US Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, (2010), has been receiving so much attention throughout this presidential election cycle, here is a consolidated list of links which help those wishing to understand the case more than just its title.

Hillary Clinton has advocated, for unknown reasons, that the Citizens United case became to be because it involved an attack campaign against her.

Why she would want to take credit for something which drastically caused our campaign finance system to become corrupted, is unknown.

The gist of the case involves a movie produced by an anti-Hillary-Clinton entity. The movie was to cause people to not want to elect Hillary Clinton.

There were provisions in a law which required various disclosures when campaign related speech was being paid for and used against a political candidate. That, is what Hillary Clinton was at the time.

The producers of the movie then filed an action in court seeking an injunction to keep the law requiring disclosure from being applied to them.

Accordingly the case, originally launched in 2008, eventually cycled its way through the courts system all the way to the Supreme Court. When in 2010, the court, in a 5-4 split decision, ruled in Citizens United’s favor.

Below are some interesting links for reference.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

Wikipedia Overview

Opinion of the Court.

Taking Back Our Democracy: Responding to Citizens United and the Rise of Super PACs, ACLU, Washington, DC, (July 24, 2012)

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Mar. 27, 2002)

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1]

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies (79)

20160213_1937 Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79 (WP).jpg US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies
by Daryl Parsons

(Feb. 13, 2016 20:00 ET) United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in Texas today comes at a time when the Citizens United case, of which Scalia was part of the majority opinion, allowed corporate money to infiltrate the political process.

This has been an issue of much debate during the 2016 presidential race where campaign finance reform has been at the forefront of issues discussed.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the opinion of the court was split 5-4, with Justice Scalia making up part of the five justices ruling in favor of the case.

Of the nine total Justices, the breakdown included Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia for the majority opinion. Dissenting opinions were held by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor.

Scalia’s replacement is expected to set off political resistance over the course of the next year within which time an appointment may fill the slot.

Case Summary

Facts of the case
Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.

In an attempt to regulate “big money” campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to “electioneering communications.” Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.

Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances.

The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors “might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause,” but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United’s claim.

Source: oyez.org (Accessed Feb. 13, 2016 20:00 EST)

Related News Stories:

Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79 (Feb. 13, 2016 19:37 EST), Washington Post

20160213_1900 Justice Antonin Scalia Dies at 79 (NYT).jpg Antonin Scalia Justice on the Supreme Court Dies at 79, (Feb. 13, 2016 19:00 EST), New York Times
Reference:

Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On Youtube