Citizens in 53 communities approved a measure on Vermont’s Town Meeting Day, coinciding with Super Tuesday, calling on the United States Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution in order to clarify that corporations do not share the same rights as natural persons possess.

The push for such a measure is a result of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Citizen’s United case.

Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont, introduced such an amendment in December and appreciated support by his constituents for his efforts, noting “Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, Town Meeting Day voters understood that corporations are not people.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding the state’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures, related to a candidate, by a corporation.

In December of last year, the Montana Supreme Court found Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, concluding the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions. The Montana Court emphasized the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling stays the state Court’s ruling until either a formal appeal to the US Supreme Court is denied, or, if an appeal is accepted, the US Supreme Court mandates the termination of the stay.

In the one page order by the US Supreme Court, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in [Citizens United v. FEC], make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.’ A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

Associate Justice Steven G. Breyer joined in Justice Ginsburg’s statement.

Photo of the United States Supreme Court building frieze by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

A Montana Supreme Court’s decision upholding the state’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate, in spite of Citizens United v. FEC, has been appealed to the US Supreme Court.

According to the SCOTUSblog, Justice Kennedy has called for a response from the state of Montana by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, February 15.

For a detailed explanation of the appeal, see Lyle Denniston’s article on SCOTUSblog at http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/new-citizens-united-sequel-2.

In December of last year, the Montana Supreme Court found Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act.

In the Court’s majority opinion in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana, the Court wrote, “The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The Court concluded the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions, emphasizing the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

In making its argument, the decision asserts that a “material factual distinction between the present case and Citizens United is the extent of the regulatory burden imposed by the challenged law.” The Court found in contrast to the “complexity and ambiguity” of restrictions for federal PACs, PACs formed and maintained in the state are “easily implemented” by the filing of “simple and straight-forward forms or reports.”

Attorney James Bopp, Jr., counsel of record for the petitioner, argues for the US Supreme Court to summarily reverse the Montana decision, writing, “The lower court’s refusal to follow Citizens United is such an obvious, blatant disregard of its duty to follow this Court’s decisions that summary reversal is proper.”

“’Occupy Courts’ to hit Citizens United” by MJ Lee on Politico.

“Lobbying for just a nod, a mention” by Abby Phillip on Politico.

“Perry’s K Street Allies Jump to Romney, Not Gingrich” by Eliza Newlin Carney and Kate Ackley on Roll Call.

Federal campaign contributions are prohibited from individuals living in the U.S. but not admitted for permanent residency, the Supreme Court affirmed today.

The Supreme Court, through a summary disposition, upheld a lower court ruling finding aliens who are in the United States on temporary work visas may not make political contributions to federal candidates or political parties, as proscribed in 2 U.S.C. §441e and its implementing regulations.

Bluman v FEC was brought on behalf of two plaintiffs, a doctor in residency and a recent law school graduate, both citizens of other countries. They argued the Court’s earlier Citizens United v FEC decision mandated allowing financial political contributions by the plaintiffs as part of their protected free speech.

In upholding the law and denying the plaintiff the relief they sought, the lower court had written in its decision, “It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.”

Today’s one-line summary disposition by the Supreme Court affirms the lower court’s holding without judicial opinion.

Photo of the U.S. Supreme Court Building by Joe Ravi on Wikipedia.

In response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, there are states and cities taking action to deny personhood to corporations. The Montana Supreme Court upheld a ban on corporate spending in local elections and a measure was introduced in the Vermont Legislature calling for a constitutional amendment distinguishing the rights of individuals from those of corporations.

The city councils of Los Angeles, Oakland, Albany, Boulder, and New York City are listed in the article as having passed resolutions – some calling for a constitutional amendment –  eliminating corporate personhood, which could affect SuperPAC spending in their jurisdictions.

For the full story, read “Cities, states pass resolutions against corporate personhood” by Bailey McCann on CivSourceonline.com.

The Montana Supreme Court has held the state law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate is constitutional.

Finding Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, the majority opinion of the Montana Supreme Court in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana states, “The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The Court concludes the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions, emphasizing the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

In making its argument, the decision asserts that a “material factual distinction between the present case and Citizens United is the extent of the regulatory burden imposed by the challenged law.” The Court found in contrast to the “complexity and ambiguity” of restrictions for federal PACs, PACs formed and maintained in the state are “easily implemented” by the filing of “simple and straight-forward forms or reports.”

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK:  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a challenge to the city’s campaign finance laws.

The laws which prohibit corporate contributions to political campaigns and require candidates to disclose contributions from people and groups that do business with the city were found to not violate constitutional free speech rights and to appropriately address the risk of corruption.

The plaintiffs argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission made the laws unconstitutional. The Court rejected that argument, finding that Citizens United applies only to independent corporate expenditures, and not to contributions limits such as those enacted by New York City.

Photo of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse by Americasroof on Wikipedia.

Amy Loprest, Executive Director of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, testified last Friday before the City Council about the effects of the Citizens United decision on New York City’s campaign finance regulation.

According to their press release:

“Campaign Finance Board Executive Director Amy Loprest testified before the City Council Committee on Governmental Operations regarding the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision earlier today. The Council is considering a resolution that calls for a Constitutional amendment to reverse the decision and establish that corporations are not entitled to the same rights as natural persons.”

“Recognizing a First Amendment right where none had previously been found, Citizens United opened the floodgates to allow massive amounts of unlimited—and too often, undisclosed—independent spending by corporations, unions, and other groups,” Loprest said.

Here is a link to a pdf file of the entire testimony.

The American League of Lobbyists recently posted two videos on their YouTube channel from an October event where they invited Tim Farnum and Peter Overby to speak about Citizens United and soft money in the 2012 elections. ALL President Howard Marlowe was the moderator.

According to the site, “On Friday, October 28th, 2011 the American League of Lobbyists hosted two award winning journalists, Tim Farnum of the Washington Post and Peter Overby of NPR, for a discussion about the role that ‘soft money’ will play in the 2012 elections.”

Part 1

Part 2

Federal House and Senate resolutions meant to blunt the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision have recently been submitted to Congress.

Senate Joint Resolution 33, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders, and House Joint Resolution 90, introduced by Representative Theodore E. Deutch, both expressly exclude for-profit corporations from “the rights given to natural persons” and prohibit corporation spending in all elections, including ballot issues.

Additionally, the resolutions allow the government “to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’’

The amendment proposed reads as follows:

Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

Section 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.

Other constitutional amendments introduced related to campaign finance can be found in our prior blog posts, including Constitutional Amendment to Control Campaign Financing and Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Citizens United.

The Boston Globe’s Political Intelligence just published this article, “Transparency groups lash out at FEC, Obama” by Donovan Slack.

Here are some of the questions the article raises: “… [C]an foreign companies with some US operations legally contribute to US elections? In the past, foreign citizens and companies have been barred from spending money in the American political system. Also unanswered: Should American organizations who spend money to influence elections have to disclose the source of the money?”

Bruce Watson offers an opinion piece called “Really Want to Influence Politicians? Stop Donating to Campaigns” on AOL’s Daily Finance page. Watson puts particular focus on the increase in fundraising by the members of the Super Committee. He references a recent study by the Project On Government Oversight. As we recall, Politico offered a bit of a different view with “Supercommittee panelists don’t cash in” by Abby Phillip.

A Federal constitutional amendment allowing Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance is being introduced by U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennett.

The amendment, a response to last year’s Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v FEC, grants Congress and the states the power to “regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents” in their laws for their respective elections.

The bill allows the government to set limits on both the amount of direct political contributions to candidates and the amount of independent expenditures that may be made in support of or in opposition to those candidates.

According to his press release, Senator Udall states, “With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.”

The full text of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on:

(1) The amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) The amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on:

(1) The amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

(2) The amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A different constitutional amendment addressing the Citizen’s United decision was introduced in September by Congressman John Conyers. Information about that amendment may be found in a prior LobbyComply post here.

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution seeking to reverse the ruling of the Citizens United decision has been reintroduced in Congress.

Congressman John Conyers and Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards, co-sponsors of House Joint Resolution 78, want to give Congress and the states specific authority to regulate corporate expenditures on political activity. The amendment reads “nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office.”

In Congresswoman Donna F. Edward’s press release she states, “Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United threatened ‘to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation’ and how right he was. Since that flawed ruling was issued, campaign spending by outside groups including corporations surged more than four-fold to reach nearly $300 million in the 2010 election cycle.”

The amendment also reads “nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”