Democracy vs. 'Wealthocracy': People Rally Against 'Next Citizens United'

Friday, October 4, 2013 by Common Dreams
Ruling in favor of big-money donors in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission would be 'absolute perversion of the First Amendment'
- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

Starting next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin oral arguments in a case many are calling "the next Citizens United" for its potential to vastly enhance the power of money in politics beyond its already lethal hold.

Shaun McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission will begin court hearings on Tuesday. In the case, republican donor Shaun McCutcheon is challenging current campaign donation rules that limit individual donors to $123,000 in total spending on federal candidates and political parties during any two-year federal election cycle, known as aggregate campaign limits.

“In McCutcheon, the Supreme Court will decide whether to double down on Citizens United to transform further our democracy – rule by the people – into a wealthocracy.” - Robert Weissman, Public Citizen

This amount is not enough for McCutcheon nor fellow plaintiff, the Republican National Committee (RNC). Neither was the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which gave corporations and other groups the freedom to spend as much as they want on political messaging campaigns, as long as they do not donate directly to candidates.

"With McCutcheon, the attack on our democracy continues," writes Marge Baker for OtherWords, "this time through a potential gutting of one of the last remaining pillars of our campaign finance legal structure, aggregate campaign contribution limits."

The effects of this new potential world of campaign funding would look like "the system of legalized bribery that existed prior to the Watergate campaign finance scandals," warns Fred Wertheimer of the group Democracy 21.

“In McCutcheon, the Supreme Court will decide whether to double down on Citizens United to transform further our democracy – rule by the people – into a wealthocracy,” said Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen. “We can only hope that this is one step too far for the Supreme Court. But we shouldn’t have to hope, and we shouldn’t have to live with a campaign finance system already corroded by Citizens United and other harmful court decisions. That McCutcheon is even being considered by the Court highlights the imperative of a constitutional amendment to protect our democracy.”

"...we need to amend our Constitution to stop the distortions of big money in our elections and restore the primacy of the people in our democracy." - Lisa Graves, Center for Media and Democracy

If McCutcheon and the RNC are victorious, it will be the first time in history that the U.S. Supreme court determines a direct contribution limit unconstitutional.

"The case is a continuation of the attack on our democracy by wealthy interests," reads a statement by People for the American way, who along with eight other groups are helping organize a national call for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and forever limit individual and corporate campaign contribution spending. "Plaintiffs challenging aggregate limits should clearly lose this case under current Supreme Court precedent, but the fact that the Court has agreed to hear their arguments at all underscores the need for amending the Constitution to restore the American people’s ability to limit corporate and special interest influence on elections and to promote a democracy of, by and for the people," the group writes.

“The Supreme Court should not repeat the grave mistakes of its disastrous Citizens United ruling in the McCutcheon case by giving the richest few even more disproportionate influence over our democracy,” said Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy. “The notion that anyone’s ‘speech’ rights are burdened because he can’t give more than $123,200 in campaign contributions is an absolute perversion of the First Amendment, and the fact that the high court would even consider such a claim demonstrates that we need to amend our Constitution to stop the distortions of big money in our elections and restore the primacy of the people in our democracy.”

And a bevy of pro-democracy groups and activists have decided to stand up next Tuesday while the court begins its hearings and make their voices heard outside on the steps of the Supreme Court. A rally outside the court on First St NE, Washington, DC will take place October 8th at 9:30 am.

Eleven North Carolina Republicans Sponsor Resolution Saying Their State Can Ignore The Constitution

By Ian Millhiser on Apr 3, 2013 THINK Progress


The Constitution “does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional” according to a resolution sponsored by North Carolina House Majority Leader Edgar Starnes (R) and ten of his fellow Republicans — a statement that puts them at odds with over 200 years of constitutional law. In light of this novel reading of the Constitution, Starnes and his allies also claim that North Carolina is free to ignore the Constitution’s ban on government endorsement of religion:

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

This resolution is nothing less than an effort to repudiate the result of the Civil War. As the resolution correctly notes, the First Amendment merely provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and, indeed, the Bill of Rights was originally understood to only place limits on the federal government. For the earliest years of the Republic, the Bill of Rights were not really “rights” at all, but were instead guidelines on which powers belonged to central authorities and which ones remained exclusively in the hands of state lawmakers.

In 1868, however the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified for the express purpose of changing this balance of power. While the early Constitution envisioned “rights” as little more than a battle between central and local government, the Fourteenth Amendment ushered in a more modern understanding. Under this amendment, “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” nor may any state “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment completely transformed the nature of the American Republic, from one where liberties were generally protected — if at all — by tensions between competing governments to one which recognized that there are certain liberties that cannot be abridged by any government.

There is some academic debate about whether the architects of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states because these liberties are part of the “privileges or immunities” of U.S. citizens, or because they are liberties that cannot be denied under the Constitution’s “due process” guarantees.

Regardless of the correct answer to this academic question, however, one of the most important judicial projects of the Twentieth Century was a series of Supreme Court decisions applying most of the Bill of Rights’ limits to state governments. This project completed the work the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment began nearly 150 year ago — reconstructing America as a nation that recognizes certain civil rights which no lawmaker is allowed to trample. The right to be free from government endorsements of religious is one of these civil rights.

So when Starnes and his colleagues lash out against this one freedom, they are not simply lashing out against some court decisions that they disagree with. They are rejecting the most transformative moment in American constitutional history and denying that their side lost the Civil War.

Corporations Can't Pledge Allegiance

Friday, August 17, 2012 by Huffington Post

by Frances Moore Lappé

 

Outcries against the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, extending corporations' 1st Amendment rights, point to many advantages giving corporations the edge over natural persons: "Limited liability" protects company owners from personal responsibility for business debts; and corporations are virtually immortal -- a big advantage. Mostly, though, critics point out the obvious: that a corporation's resources -- Exxon Mobil earns $1,300 per second -- typically dwarf those of ordinary mortals.

But whatever one's stand on "free speech rights" for corporations, what seems inarguable is that once the Court -- notably in its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision -- began conflating spending and speech corporations and the wealthiest among us have been the big winners. Their vast resources enable them to morph into ear-shattering bullhorns drowning out regular citizens.

And, from this thought, I'm compelled to ask the "tree falling in the forest" question: Do I still have free speech if no one even knows I'm speaking because a tiny minority of "corporate voices" can produce a cacophony so loud that it cancels out the sound of mine?

Put another way, without any recognition of a right to be heard, does our 1st Amendment lose its power to protect the interchange of ideas -- foundational to democracy -- and permit instead the transformation of public discourse into a one-way gusher from the most powerful?

Earlier Courts took this danger seriously. In 1969, for example, in a decision written by moderate justice Byron White, the Supreme Court noted in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC that: "It is the purpose of the 1st Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market..."

To me -- and, I believe, our Founders -- democracy depends, moreover, on citizens' right not just to be heard but a corollary, a right to hear diverse points of view necessary to make informed choices. In 1787 Thomas Jefferson wrote that "[T]he basis of our governments...[is] the opinion of the people..." and stressed therefore that we must "give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, & to contrive those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people..."

Jefferson believed so strongly in the importance of a citizenry informed by diverse views that he continued: "[I]f it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them."

Today, remaining true to Jefferson's insight, many Americans appropriately assail China and other totalitarian regimes for denying precisely such freedom of access to information.
If, in our Founders' vision, a Republic depended on the capacity of educated citizens for reasoned consideration over public matters, then surely "spending as speech" is a body blow to our Republic.

And there's more to weigh here, for just as corporations are not natural persons, neither are they, nor can they be, citizens.

By their legal structure, corporations have no loyalty to our country. Between 2009 and 2011, for example, thirty-five big U.S.-based multinational companies, including Wal-Mart Stores, International Paper Co., and Honeywell International Inc., added jobs much faster than others. But nearly three-fourths were overseas, noted the Wall Street Journal last spring. Additionally, "at least 60 percent" of U.S. corporate cash stockpiles are now held abroad.

Corporations' loyalty is not to the American worker or to the broader community but to shareholders, wherever they be.

So of course corporations cannot pledge allegiance to the United States of America. With the exception of the several hundred firms now incorporated as "Benefit Corporations," legally obligated to serve the community's wellbeing, corporations' charters commit them to the opposite: to narrow self-seeking.

Thus, while most Americans recoil at the idea of "corporate personhood" because of the obvious power corporations enjoy compared to living-breathing mortals, just as important may be their differing responsibilities. And, I don't mean only the obvious, that citizens but not corporations are obliged to vote and required to serve on a jury and respond to a military draft. I mean something broader: Our Founders envisioned a Republic of citizens committed to, and capable, of participating in self-government.

They emphasized that such self-government could only work as we humans, flawed as we are, cultivate certain Republican "virtues" -- especially the capacity to consider not merely one's own personal gain but to protect democracy itself.

They grasped that self-government could only survive as long as we citizens --in step with the Founders' wisdom in creating a federal structure of countervailing powers -- work to keep concentrated power in check. Jefferson put the danger colorfully: "If once they [citizens] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves."

Thus, what the Supreme Court betrays in its 2010 Citizens United's decision, and previous rulings affording corporations personhood rights, is our Founders' concept of citizenship, and thus democratic self-government itself.

Surely, given today's crises from poverty to climate chaos, we can't wait for a constitutional amendment to put corporations in their place. We must build toward that goal, I agree, but we must work for change we can effect now.

As citizens We have power to begin to check the political power of corporations -- holding elected officials accountable for requiring transparency regarding a corporation's political spending by passing the DISCLOSE Act and the Shareholder Protection Act. We can vote for those committed to creating a system of citizen and/or public-funded elections so that candidates can win public office without depending on corporate coffers.

For our rights as citizens to hear diverse views, we can also call for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in place from 1949 to 1987, that obliged those holding licenses to public airwaves to "operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance."

In so doing, we will be reviving the very best in the never-finished journey of our Republic. Claiming our first responsibility as citizens seeking the common good, we can refuse to allow our voices to be drowned out by private entities seeking only the corporate good.

NDAA: The Important Lawsuit that No One is Talking About

Truthdig, August 10, 2012

 

Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA.  In case you don’t remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial.  At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won’t use it.  Thanks pal!

In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May.  The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others.  While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, the real target is the 1st Amendment.  By having a law on the books that allows the government to arbitrarily lock anyone up and throw away the key, the government is actually trying to instill enough fear in people that they self-censor speech and become too afraid to criticize the criminal elite political and economic oligarchy.

Tangerine Bolen is one the lead plaintiffs in the suit against the government and she penned a powerful piece for the UK’s Guardian.  Here are some key quotes:

I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.

In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.

Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an “associated force”, and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

This past week’s hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction.

Full article here.

No Freedoms to Hate Us For Anymore

Who Are the Evil Ones?

by MISSY BEATTIE

 

Remember that they (the evil ones) hate our freedoms.

Remember, too, that in the aftermath of 9/11, the war criminals told us this repeatedly.  Here’s an example from George W. Bush:

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

And another:

We must be strong and we must be decisive. We must stop the evil ones, so our children and grandchildren can know peace and security and freedom in the greatest nation on the face of the Earth… We know we’re one people; we know we’re one country. We’re united from coast to coast by a determination and a firm resolve to see that right prevails.

Remember, too, that this freedom, inspiring all that hatred, is enshrined in the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Remember that the words “freedom” and “evil ones” also are enshrined in the language of corporate media “stars” and politicians.

Recall the words Barack Obama spoke during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech:

The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.  We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will.  We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

There’s the word “freedom” again. But in this paragraph, it refers to providing liberty to those whose countries we invade and occupy because we “seek” whatever (?) good transpires from granting “freedom and prosperity” to others.

Now, make note that the United States has departments and legislation to protect freedom to prevent the evil ones from inflicting harm. Here’s a list:

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Total Information Awareness (TIA)
Patriot Act
Military Commissions Act
Homegrown Terrorism Act
House Resolution 347
National Defense Authorization Act

And think about the NATO Summit in Chicago—May 20^th and 21^st.   But first read an article by John LaForge for a stomach-lurching look at NATO’s “mission accomplishments”.

I just took a break from writing this, checked my mail, and read the following from Free Press:

Whether you’re a credentialed journalist, a protester or a bystander  with a smartphone, you are guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of access to information.  Your right to document public events must also be protected.

Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way. Conflicts are escalating between those trying to bear witness on one side and local police and government officials on the other.  All too often, the First Amendment is caught in the middle.

As protests and election-year events unfold in 2012, we must guard these rights and protect the networks that help us voice our political beliefs. Our First Amendment right to record must extend to everyone.

But Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has put his official boot on this prerogative (the freedom for which the evil ones hate us) with certain ordinances that will remain in force after the summit:

• Authorization for the Mayor to purchase and deploy surveillance cameras throughout the city, without any type of oversight.
• Restrictions on public activity, including amplified sound and morning gatherings.
• Restrictions on parades, including the requirement to purchase an insurance policy worth $1 million and to register every sign or banner that will be held by more than one person.
• The power to deputize many different types of law enforcement personnel other than the Chicago Police Department.

After 9/11, fear and loss-of-liberty threats became a perfect petri dish for the corporatocracy and a miasma of secrecy, surveillance, intimidation, punitive measures, and endless war.

Pay close attention to the “Police Forces” section in the Wikipedia piece.  Along with this and all of the above, the truth about this freedom-hating propaganda strobe lights the impoverishment of loss. So many of the hallowed freedoms have been eliminated by the real enemies—Wall Street criminals and their puppets who reside in US government positions of “leadership.”

If “they” attacked us only because they hated our freedoms, there’s nothing to hate anymore.

NDAA's 'Indefinite Detention' Provisions Unconstitutional, says Judge

Thursday, May 17, 2012 by Common Dreams
An Obama-appointed judge rules provisions of NDAA likely violate the 1st and 5th Amendments  

A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled in favor of a group of civilian activists and journalists and struck down highly controversial 'indefinite detention' and 'material support' provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last December. In their suit, the plaintiffs stated they could be detained 'indefinitely' for their constitutionally protected activities. Citing the 'vagueness' of certain language in the bill, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest -- who was appointed to the court by Obama -- agreed, and said the law could have "chilling impact on First Amendment rights" for journalists, activists, and potentially all US citizens.

"An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an 'associated force' without even being aware that he or she was doing so," the judge said.

The ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by seven plaintiffs — Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Birgitta Jonsdottir, Alexa O’Brien, Kai Wargall, and Jennifer Bolen — alleging that the NDAA violates ”both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Salon's Glenn Greenwald, who has written critically and extensively of the NDAA, called the ruling "a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs."

"This is an extraordinary and encouraging decision," Greenwald continues, though he noted that many caveats still must be applied. "This is only a preliminary injunction (though the judge made it clear that she believes plaintiffs will ultimately prevail). It will certainly be appealed and can be reversed. There are still other authorities (including the AUMF) which the DOJ can use to assert the power of indefinite detention. Nonetheless, this is a rare and significant limit placed on the U.S. Government’s ability to seize ever-greater powers of detention-without-charges, and it is grounded in exactly the right constitutional principles: ones that federal courts and the Executive Branch have been willfully ignoring for the past decade."

*  *  *

The Associated Press reports:

A judge on Wednesday struck down a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, saying it left journalists, scholars and political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.

"A tremendous step forward for the restoration of due process and the rule of law"
-- Chris HedgesU.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan said in a written ruling that a single page of the law has a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights." She cited testimony by journalists that they feared their association with certain individuals overseas could result in their arrest because a provision of the law subjects to indefinite detention anyone who "substantially" or "directly" provides "support" to forces such as al-Qaida or the Taliban. She said the wording was too vague and encouraged Congress to change it.

"An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so," the judge said.

She said the law also gave the government authority to move against individuals who engage in political speech with views that "may be extreme and unpopular as measured against views of an average individual.

"That, however, is precisely what the First Amendment protects," Forrest wrote.
She called the fears of journalists in particular real and reasonable, citing testimony at a March hearing by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges, who has interviewed al-Qaida members, conversed with members of the Taliban during speaking engagements overseas and reported on 17 groups named on a list prepared by the State Department of known terrorist organizations. He testified that the law has led him to consider altering speeches where members of al-Qaida or the Taliban might be present.

Hedges called Forrest's ruling "a tremendous step forward for the restoration of due process and the rule of law."

He said: "Ever since the law has come out, and because the law is so amorphous, the problem is you're not sure what you can say, what you can do and what context you can have."

Hedges was among seven individuals and one organization that challenged the law with a January lawsuit. The National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December, allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. Wednesday's ruling does not affect another part of the law that enables the United States to indefinitely detain members of terrorist organizations, and the judge said the government has other legal authority it can use to detain those who support terrorists.

*  *  *

Glenn Greenwald writes:
An Obama-Appointed Judge Rules Its Indefinite Detention Provisions Likely Violate the 1st and 5th Amendments

The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3) the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.

The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three argumentsAs for the DOJ’s first argument — lack of standing — the court found that the plaintiffs are already suffering substantial injury from the reasonable fear that they could be indefinitely detained under section 1021 of the NDAA as a result of their constitutionally protected activities. As the court explained:

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs assert that § 1021 already has impacted their associational and expressive activities–and would continue to impact them, and that § 1021 is vague to such an  extent that it provokes fear that certain of their associational and expressive activities could subject them to indefinite or prolonged military detention.

The court found that the plaintiffs have “shown an actual fear that their expressive and associational activities” could subject them to indefinite detention under the law,and “each of them has put forward uncontroverted  evidence of concrete — non-hypothetical — ways in which the presence of the legislation has already impacted those expressive and associational activities” (as but one example, Hedges presented evidence that his “prior journalistic activities relating to certain  organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban” proves “he has a realistic fear that those activities will subject him to detention under § 1021″). Thus, concluded the court, these plaintiffs have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute notwithstanding the fact that they have not yet been detained under it; that’s because its broad, menacing detention powers are already harming them and the exercise of their constitutional rights.

Significantly, the court here repeatedly told the DOJ that it could preclude standing for the plaintiffs if they were willing to state clearly that none of the journalistic and free speech conduct that the plaintiffs engage in could subject them to indefinite detention. But the Government refused to make any such representation. Thus, concluded the court, “plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment.”

Independently, the court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the NDAA violates their Fifth Amendment due process rights because the statute is so vague that it is virtually impossible to know what conduct could subject one to indefinite detention. Specifically, the court focused on the NDAA’s authorization to indefinitely detain not only Al Qaeda members, but also members of so-called “associated forces” and/or anyone who “substantially supports” such forces, and noted:

Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their vagueness challenge. The terms upon which they focused at the hearing relate to who is a “covered person.” In that regard, plaintiffs took issue with the lack of definition and clarity regarding who constitutes an “associated forces,” and what it means to “substantially” or “directly” “support” such forces or, al-Qaeda or the Taliban. . . .

The Government was unable to define precisely what ”direct” or “substantial” “support” means. . . .Thus, an individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so.

Perhaps most importantly, the court categorically rejected the central defense of this odious bill from the Obama administration and its defenders: namely, that it did nothing more than the 2001 AUMF already did and thus did not really expand the Government’s power of indefinite detention. The court cited three reasons why the NDAA clearly expands the Government’s detention power over the 2001 AUMF (all of which I previously cited when denouncing this bill).

California Moves Towards Overturning Citizens United

Friday, March 23, 2012 by Common Dreams
Move "helps re-establish the principle that democracy means ruled by the people, not giant corporations.”

The California state Assembly endorsed yesterday a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United. 

The amendment, which passed by a 48-22 vote, calls on Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that allows unlimited corporate political spending.

“This is a major victory,” said Bob Edgar, president and CEO of Common Cause. “Californians are saying that corporations aren’t people and they shouldn’t be permitted to use their tremendous economic power to take charge of our elections. Congress should listen – and act on – the message.”

Public Citizen president Robert Weissman said, “Thank you, California, for helping lead the charge to re-establish the principle that democracy means ruled by the people, not giant corporations.”

* * *

San Francisco Chronicle: State lawmakers want repeal of ruling boosting corporate spending

As big money pours into the November election campaign, the California Assembly voted Thursday to ask Congress to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited corporate political spending.

By a 48-22 vote along party lines, the Assembly endorsed a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United, the 5-4 ruling in January 2010 that declared corporations and labor unions had a First Amendment right to give money to independent committees supporting political candidates.

The Constitution, the resolution declared, “was designed to protect the free-speech rights of people, not corporations.” The floor sponsors of AJR22 were Democrats Bob Wieckowski of Fremont and Michael Allen of Santa Rosa.

* * *

Common Cause: California State Assembly endorses amendment to overturn Citizens United
Golden State jumps into national drive to reform campaign finance

Sacramento, CA – The California State Assembly jumped into the national campaign finance debate today, overwhelmingly approving a resolution that calls on Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment permitting limits on corporate political spending.

The 48-22 vote in favor of Assembly Joint Resolution 22, sponsored by Assembly Members Bob Wieckowski and Michael Allen, puts the Golden State at the forefront of a national effort to undo the damage done by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. A vote in the state Senate is expected within a few weeks.

Common Cause has launched a national campaign, Amend 2012, to secure the passage of similar resolutions across the country and to help voters voice their sentiments on an amendment through ballot initiatives and referenda.

“This is a major victory,” said Bob Edgar, president and CEO of Common Cause. “Californians are saying that corporations aren’t people and they shouldn’t be permitted to use their tremendous economic power to take charge of our elections. Congress should listen – and act on – the message.”

The Citizens United decision has fed the growth of “super PACs,” fundraising operations that are collecting millions of dollars – mostly from wealthy corporations and individuals – to finance advertising campaigns promoting or opposing various candidates. The groups are required by law to operate independent of political parties and candidates, but several are run by veteran Republican and Democratic operatives and appear to be closely tied to partisan leaders. This new and unregulated flow of campaign funds has led to one of the most negative campaign seasons in modern history.

* * *

Public Citizen: Way to Go, California! Assembly Passes Resolution Calling for Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

California is well in stride to be the third state to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in an attempt to influence elections. The California Assembly passed a resolution today – by a 48-22 vote – calling for an amendment, sending the measure to the California Senate.

Introduced Jan. 5 by Assemblymembers Bob Wieckowski and Michael Allen, the resolution calls for an amendment that would prevent corporations from being granted the same rights as individuals and would create fair elections, in which Congress could regulate all forms of campaign spending.

“The Citizens United decision tilts the scales of campaign funding toward those who support wealthy special interests rather than working Americans,” Wieckowski said. “This resolution is designed to send a grassroots message to Washington about the urgent need to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling and restore fair elections to the people.”

Added Jonah Minkoff-Zern, senior organizer with Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People campaign, “California is poised to take this momentous step in calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and return fair elections and constitutional rights to the people. It is because of the work of dedicated activists throughout the state that California’s elected officials are joining them in taking a stand to say that democracy is for people, not for corporations.”

California’s in good company. Hawaii led the charge in calling for a constitutional amendment, followed by New Mexico on Feb. 11. And while Maryland does not consider such resolutions, a majority of the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates have signed onto a letter calling for an amendment.

Public Citizen has helped lead the introduction of similar resolutions in Massachusetts, Vermont and Maryland, and has supported the efforts of local activists and lawmakers who have introduced similar resolutions in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas and New York. In total, resolutions have been introduced or passed in 16 states. Public Citizen is leading a coordinated effort to pass hundreds of similar resolutions at the local level the week of June 11.  More information about this effort – and a map of resolutions introduced and passed – can be found at www.resolutionsweek.org.

“Every day brings more evidence of how Citizens United is making a mockery of our democracy,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. “Thank you, California, for helping lead the charge to re-establish the principle that democracy means ruled by the people, not giant corporations.”

Here's Your Job Application. Now Give Us Your Facebook Password

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 by Common Dreams
Employers asking for employees' Facebook passwords; ACLU calls it "gross breach of privacy"

Some companies and government agencies are demanding Facebook passwords from prospective employees during job interviews. Civil liberties advocates including the ACLU have slammed the practice as a violation of privacy. Unfortunately, for many who are unemployed or under-employed, the pressure to submit to such a request may be high.

Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor, told the Associated Press, "It's akin to requiring someone's house keys," and called it "an egregious privacy violation."

Frederic Wolens, a Facebook spokesperson, gave a statement to MSNBC indicating that an employer asking for a prospective employee's login information would violate the terms of Facebook. "Under our terms, only the holder of the email address and password is considered the Facebook account owner. We also prohibit anyone from soliciting the login information or accessing an account belonging to someone else."

Students have not been immune to this privacy invasion either. A minor student in Minnesota was coerced into giving her Facebook and email login information to school authorities, prompting a lawsuit from the ACLU-Minnesota.

* * *

The Daily Mail: Revealed: How colleges and employers ask for candidates' Facebook and email passwords during job interviews

Rather than trying to get around the pesky password protections of Facebook and email accounts, certain government agencies and colleges are cutting straight to the source.

Some extremely inquisitive employers are asking candidates to hand over to them their email and Facebook login information when they apply for a job.

Others strongly request that the candidate opens their pages in front of them and allow their would-be bosses to scroll through their private information during the interview. [...]

They say that while ‘shoulder surfing’, as the practice is called, may technically be voluntary, the vast majority of applicants feel obligated to open up their lives to their employers or risk losing the job.

* * *

Alexis Madrigal: The Atlantic
Should Employers Be Allowed to Ask for Your Facebook Login?

The ACLU calls this policy "a frightening and illegal invasion of privacy" and I can't say that I disagree. Keep in mind that this isn't looking at what you've posted to a public Twitter account; the government agency here could look through private Facebook messages, which seems a lot like reading through your mail, paper or digital.

* * *

Meredith Curtis: ACLU
Want a job? Password, please!

Maryland corrections officer Robert Collins approached the ACLU of Maryland late last year, disturbed that he was required to provide his Facebook login and password to the Maryland Division of Corrections (DOC) during a recertification interview. He had to sit there while the interviewer logged on to his account and read not only his postings, but those of his family and friends too.

"We live in a time when national security is the highest priority, but it must be delicately balanced with personal privacy," said Collins. "My fellow officers and I should not have to allow the government to view our personal Facebook posts and those of our friends, just to keep our jobs." [...]

The demand for Facebook login information is not only a gross breach of privacy for Officer Collins and his friends, it raises significant legal concerns under the Federal Stored Communications Act and Maryland state law, which protect privacy rights and extend protections to electronic communications.

* * *

ACLU-MN files lawsuit against Minnewaska Area Schools

St. Paul, Minn. – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against Minnewaska Area Schools and the Pope County Sheriff's office for violating the constitutional rights of a minor student. R.S's free speech and privacy rights were violated by the school district in two separate instances involving Facebook. (To protect the privacy of the minor defendant, she will be referred to as R.S.)

In early 2011 R.S. posted a comment, while at home, on her Facebook page about her dislike of a school staff member. The school learned about the comment, and R.S. received a detention and was forced to write an apology to the staff member. She was disciplined again when she cursed on her Facebook page, complaining that someone reported her to the school. This time she was given an in-school suspension and was prohibited from attending a school field trip. The ACLU-MN contends that these sanctions violate her First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

In a second incident R.S. was brought into a school administrator's office where she was coerced to turn over (against her will) login information to her Facebook and email accounts because of allegations that she had online conversations about sex with another student off-campus. Present at the search was a local deputy along with two school officials. During this process, R.S. was called a liar and told she would be given detentions if she did not give the adults access to her accounts. R.S.'s mother was not informed about the search until after it happened. The Deputy and school officials did not have a warrant to search R.S.'s private accounts. The ACLU-MN alleges in their suit that this violated R.S.'s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. [...]

"Students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the school house gate," stated Charles Samuelson, Executive Director for the ACLU-MN. "The Supreme Court ruled on that in the 1970s, yet schools like Minnewaska seem to have no regard for the standard."

* * *

MSNBC: Govt. agencies, colleges demand applicants' Facebook passwords

Employers and colleges find the treasure-trove of personal information hiding behind password-protected accounts and privacy walls just too tempting, and some are demanding full access from job applicants and student athletes. [...]

Student-athletes in colleges around the country also are finding out they can no longer maintain privacy in Facebook communications because schools are requiring them to "friend" a coach or compliance officer, giving that person access to their “friends-only” posts. Schools are also turning to social media monitoring companies with names like UDilligence and Varsity Monitor for software packages that automate the task. The programs offer a "reputation scoreboard" to coaches and send "threat level" warnings about individual athletes to compliance officers. [...]

 on colleges, while spreading quickly among athletic departments, seems to be limited to athletes at the moment. There's nothing stopping schools from applying the same policies to other students, however. And Shear says he's heard from college applicants that interviewers have requested Facebook or Twitter login information during in-person screenings. [...]

The practice seems less common among employers, but scattered incidents are gaining attention from state lawmakers. The blog Tecca.com last year showed what it said was an image of an application for a clerical job with a North Carolina police department that included the following question:

"Do you have any web page accounts such as Facebook, Myspace, etc.? If so, list your username and password."

Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill

Published: 10 March, 2012 - RT

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form “means it's easier to prosecute under 'knowingly,'” instead of both knowingly and willfully, “which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime.” Speaking with IB Times, Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.

"[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn't supported by the facts,"Verheyden-Hilliard adds. "This has always been a bad law."

Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union adds to IB Times, "Bottom line, it doesn't create any new violations of the law.” So far, however, it has raised awareness of the levels that the US government are willing to go to in order to make it harder to express ones’ self.

Under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars, and the thing about the Secret Service (in case you couldn’t tell by their name), is that they don’t always make it clear where they are. You could even say that the service they provide, at times, is kept secret.

Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now officially covered under Secret Service protection, making it a federal offense to disrupt a campaign stop. That means whether it’s by way of a glitter bomb protest or causing a disturbance on the same Holiday Inn hotel floor that Santorum is staying in, doing such could cause a bit of a legal battle for the persons involved.

Although the G-8 Summit originally scheduled for Chicago this spring would have made much of the Windy City a protected area where crimes could easily be tacked on to arrested protesters, the event was moved this week to the presidential retreat at Camp David. In turn, many have suggested that the White House is only going out of their way to limit protesting rights. While a Chicago summit would have meant the Trespass Bill could have been enforced in the same area where thousands of demonstrators were expected to protest, moving the event to a heavily fortified rural location will instead deter protesters from likely coming close atto the meeting at all.

And before you forget, the president can now detain you for getting too close to his front yard, order your assassination if the country considers you a threat and lock you away for life with no charge if you’re alleged to be a terrorist. You, on the other hand, can’t yell obscenities at Newt Gingrich without risking arrest.

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

So, if you're keeping count: the 1st amendment is about to fall. the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th are already gone with the 2011 NDAA. So, from the original Bill of Rights, the only ones left, soon, are the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th, 10th.--jef

Published: 29 February, 2012, RT

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — whether it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

High Court Opened Door to Legalized Bribery

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 by The Capital Times(Wisconsin)
by Dave Zweifel

Remember the 2010 State of the Union address when President Obama spoke directly at the Supreme Court justices sitting in the front row and “lectured” them about their Citizens United decision?

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama told the justices, as the glare of the cameras focused on them. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.”

The court, by a 5-4 vote, had just declared that corporations are, in effect, people when it comes to First Amendment rights and, therefore, their “free speech” can’t be limited by campaign spending laws.

As Obama sternly expressed his displeasure and Democrats in the chamber rose to applaud him, the cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito, one of the five in the majority, shaking his head and mouthing the words, “Not true.”

Well, here we are barely two years later and already the impact of the Citizens United decision is being felt across the land. Those who were criticized for predicting that the decision would swamp election campaigns with even more wild special-interest spending have already been vindicated.(yeah, I'm patting myself on the back for that one...--jef) That includes the four dissenting justices, who wrote a blistering dissent forecasting what would happen.

The “not true” Alito now looks like just another ivy-towered jurist who can’t fathom what his opinion might mean to the real world with which he is so painfully out of touch.

Just look at Iowa last week.

Political committees, unfettered by limits established by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, for instance, spent so much on attack ads during the last weeks before the caucuses that they actually swamped the efforts of the candidates themselves.

Noted the Chicago Tribune: “The early activity heralded a transformation across the country in the first presidential cycle since a 2010 Supreme Court decision lifted the limits on individual and corporate donations to independent political organizations known as super PACs.”

According to the paper, the decision has rendered “quaintly obsolete the old system under which donations were strictly limited to candidates and party committees. If the trend continues, the 2012 presidential election will reverse more than a century of efforts to curb the influence of big money on politics.”

The effort to rid the system of big money, as former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, the co-author with Sen. John McCain of the McCain-Feingold Act, used to point out, began with former President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a fierce foe of corporate spending in elections.

Since the Supreme Court opened the doors, super PACs have been formed to support specific candidates, although they’re not supposed to be linked with the campaigns themselves. But this is yet another subterfuge in the never-ending spending binge that marks today’s campaigns. The super PACs raise and spend unlimited funds while the candidate claims to know nothing about the ads and, of course, is “powerless” to do anything about them. That’s what Mitt Romney claimed in Iowa, where millions were spent on his behalf to tear down Newt Gingrich.

Fred Wertheimer, president of a national campaign finance reform group, believes the super PACS are vehicles that will spread to Congress and lead us back to a system of pure legalized bribery.

In other words, with Iowa, we have just seen the beginning.

Someone should inform Justice Samuel Alito that his “not true” was the real falsehood.

New York City calls on Congress to overturn Citizens United ruling

(Montana, now NYC calling on Citizens United to be overturned. This rocks!--jef)

By Eric W. Dolan - RAW Story
Wednesday, January 4, 2012

John Bonifaz, the co-founder and director of Free Speech For People, said a New York City Council resolution calling for legislation to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling was a “great victory for democracy.”

New York City Council voted Wednesday to call on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment overturning the ruling, which held that corporations had the same First Amendment rights as U.S. citizens and that political spending was free speech. Los Angeles and other cities have passed similar resolutions.

“It shows that this movement is only going to continue to build as people across the nation stand up to protect our republic and our constitution,” Bonifaz said on MSBNC.

“We are already seeing traction from people across the political spectrum who want to stand up to and say it is time to get money out of politics, it is time to make clear that corporations are not people with constitutional rights.”

Bonifaz said the “biggest new development” was a recent Montana Supreme Court ruling, which upheld a ban on corporate political expenditures in state elections.

“Here you have out of a red state a five justice majority making there that they are not going to let their century old ban on corporate money be overturned.”

Walker Enlists Karl Rove Protégé to Promote New Protest Policy

Saturday, December 17, 2011 by PR Watch

by Brendan Fischer

 

As Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s new policies restricting protest in the Wisconsin capitol take effect in advance of the anniversary of 2011's historic labor uprisings, the controversial governor has enlisted a new spokesperson to sell the rules, a 28-year old protégé of Karl Rove and new political appointee of the governor. 

Madison blogger Joe Vittie broke the story on WisconsinReporters.com about Jocelyn Webster, the person Walker hired as the public face defending the rules. Webster cut her teeth with Rove’s notorious Office of Political Affairs in the George W. Bush Administration. A congressional investigation of the activities of that office yielded allegations -- including specific allegations against Webster -- that Rove’s team was involved in partisan campaigning on the public dime, a claim also leveled at aides of her newest boss during his tenure as Milwaukee County Executive.

Webster’s Eye-Rolling Lead Some to Discover Her Karl Rove Roots 

 

On December 1, Walker's Department of Administration (DOA) released a twenty-three page policy announcing new limits on demonstrations in and around the state capitol, the site of massive protests earlier this year. The policy was clearly drafted with an eye towards landmark federal First Amendment cases, but legal observers have criticized the new rules, and the ACLU of Wisconsin is considering legal action. Walker opponents view the new rules as an effort to suppress dissent. For example, the definition of a "rally" as four people appears aimed at the Solidarity Singers, a group who gather every day at noon to sing popular songs altered with political lyrics criticizing the Walker administration.

DOA unveiled the policy December 1, but announced a two-week "educational period" (which some perceived as a public relations blitz) to help the public understand the new restrictions. The rules take effect December 16.

Just before the policy was announced, the Walker administration selected a new political appointee to serve as DOA Communications Director. The name of the appointee, Jocelyn Webster, was at the top of the December 1 press release announcing the new restrictions on capitol protests. Webster was also quoted in the press claiming that the “updated policy is meant to remove confusion and create consistency” for law enforcement officers and the public.

Webster caught the eye of citizens attending a recent public "information session" about the new restrictions on rallies in the capitol. Based on what some described as her petulant eye-rolling in response to citizens expressing concerns about restrictions on their freedom of speech, Vittie took a closer look at her experience and background.

From Washington to Wisconsin 

 

Webster is no local. She was most recently in Dallas, Texas, working government relations for the global convenience store chain 7-Eleven. Previously, she worked four months for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s PR shop. For nine months before that she pushed press inside the beltway on education policy in the 2008 election year. She also worked PR for New Yorker Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign.

But before those experiences, Webster worked for the federal government in Washington, D.C., and was cited in a major congressional investigation.

After graduating from college in California, Webster got a gig at the new Department of Homeland Security as a liaison to the George W. Bush White House. After six months, she moved to the White House and became a staffer in the Office of Political Affairs (OPA) in February, 2006.

OPA was overseen by Karl Rove and was reportedly tasked with tracking the political environment. A three-year investigation into Rove's OPA concluded in January of this year with a report showing the office routinely violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars on partisan political activities.

The report by the Office of Special Counsel found that the taxpayer-funded activities of OPA employees "were directed at the electoral success of Republican candidates and the Republican Party as a whole," and that "U.S. Treasury funds were unlawfully used to finance efforts to pursue Republican victories at the polls.”

"OPA was essentially an extension of the RNC in the White House,” the report stated.
Rove's OPA violated the Hatch Act throughout the Bush presidency, said the report, but particularly in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections, when Webster joined the OPA.

Webster's Ties to Bush White House Email Controversy 

 

The controversial role of the office in which Webster worked did not end after the 2006 mid-term elections.

In 2007, it was revealed that OPA staffers had been using partisan Republican National Committee (RNC) email accounts for official business, such as the controversial firings of federal prosecutors. This practice circumvented the requirements of federal sunshine and ethics laws, such as the Presidential Records Act, which required that employees preserve a record of all communications taking place at work. The National Journal wrote that Karl Rove sent ninety-five percent of his emails on his RNC account.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation. As a result of that congressional investigation, the Bush Administration claimed that 5 million emails had been lost or deleted. After a lawsuit, computer technicians were able to reconstruct some of the deleted messages and found that up to 22 million emails had been deleted.

Chairman Waxman rejected demands by the RNC that the searches of the emails be limited. In an April 2007 letter (pdf), Waxman notes that accepting the RNC's request to limit the email search terms "would not have located a January 19, 2007, e-mail from an official in Karl Rove's office to an official at the General Services Administration transmitting a copy of Powerpoint slides prepared by the White House that list the top 20 Democratic targets in 2008. That e-mail read: 'Please do not email this out or let people see it. It is a close hold and we're not supposed to be emailing it around.'"

Waxman's citation?

"E-mail from Jocelyn Webster (pdf), Staff Assistant, Office of Political Affairs, White House,
to Tessa Truesdell, Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, General Services Administration (Jan. 19,2007)." Webster was not charged with any crime for her activities in Rove’s operations during her work for him from early 2006 until early 2007.

Webster Role in "Pentagon Pundits" Operation, which CMD Helped Expose 

In early 2007, with public support for the Iraq war declining, Webster moved to the Pentagon's public affairs division.

In 2008, David Barstow broke a story in the New York Times about the depth and breadth of the Defense Department’s public affairs operation using "surrogates" to promote Bush administration policies in the press, without disclosing the Pentagon's hidden hand. The Center for Media and Democracy’s founder John Stauber called the scandal “the Pentagon Papers of this war” in Iraq. CMD, which publishes PRWatch, made the documents Barstow obtained available to the public through its SourceWatch electronic library. Barstow and the Times won a Pulitzer for its investigation.

One part of that program was described in an earlier Harpers Magazine article by Ken Silverstein, who specifically identified Webster as working on the project. The so-called "Surrogates Program," according to Silverstein, "arrange[d] regular conference calls during which senior Pentagon officials brief retired military officials, civilian defense and national security analysts, pundits, and bloggers. A few moderates are invited to take part, but the list of participants skews far, far to the right. The Pentagon essentially feeds participants the talking points, bullet points, and stories it wants told."

Silverstein wrote, "it’s quite clear that the Pentagon views it as a propaganda program."
Neither Webster nor others involved were charged with any crime, even though watchdog groups like CMD noted how the so-called "surrogate operation" violated long-standing federal appropriations rules and other laws against military propaganda in the United States.

Webster Joins the Walker Administration, and Makes a Splash 

 

Throughout the 2011 Wisconsin protests, Governor Walker falsely claimed that most of the demonstrators were from out-of-state. But some are now questioning whether he recruited his own out-of-state agitator in Webster.

During last week's public information sessions on Wisconsin's new capitol access rules, citizens concerned about the policy's impact on their First Amendment rights were dismayed by Webster's dismissive attitude towards them, which she reportedly expressed by rolling her eyes and shaking her head at their comments. Many were also put off by Webster's misleading press release that had asserted the new rules, which require permits for groups as small as four persons, were simply restatements of existing policies.

Her first real public performance in her new taxpayer-funded job caused some, like bloggers at WisconsinReporters.com, to look into her actual track record. At a hearing this week, Paul Schmid of that website expressed concern about the background of the Department of Administration's new communications director.

"This is the state of Robert LaFollette, open government, transparent government," said Schmid, noting that citizens were unlikely to trust the administration considering Webster's past involvement in taxpayer-funded political activity.

In response to Schmidt's comments, Chris Schoenherr, DOA Deputy Secretary, replied:
"You'll decide whether, or not, you decide to trust the administration. Or not."