How Retired Justice David Souter Can Save the Supreme Court

The reputation of the United States Supreme Court is in trouble. Americans’ approval of the Court dropped fifteen points from 2009 to 2011, according to the Gallup Poll. Faith in the Supreme Court is dropping right along with confidence in government as a whole. Less than 2/3 of Americans say they trust the judicial branch, Gallup says.

And with good reason. Beginning with Bush v Gore in 2000, the court has issued a series of starkly partisan rulings in favor of conservative and corporate causes.

The decision of the high court that has most inspired outrage and derision in recent years is Citizens United. The Supreme Court rewrote the First Amendment to equate money spent on influencing elections and lobbying elected officials as a form of free speech under the First Amendment. Then the Court granted corporations the same First Amendment rights as humans. This twofer has unleashed a spree of legalized bribery by corporate America that will reach epic proportions in elections this year. It’s also ignited a grassroots firestorm. Where’s Our Money, and many other organizations, are backing a Constitutional Amendment to restore the primacy of humans to American Democracy.

As Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out in his blistering dissent to the majority’s opinion in Citizens United, the decision overturns a hundred years of  Supreme Court rulings upholding restrictions on corporate campaign spending. Such a sudden and profound reversal in what the Constitution supposedly means is an offense in itself. It flouts a core principle of the American judiciary, known as “stare decisis,” which requires judges to respect the judicial decisions of their predecessors. “Stare decisis” is the basis for public faith in the integrity and honesty of judges and courts.

Perhaps for that reason, the Citizens United decision seems to have inspired several former justices of the Supreme Court to speak out.

In late May, now retired Justice Stevens, in a speech at the University of Arkansas, condemned the majority’s opinion in Citizens United as internally inconsistent because it leads inexorably to the conclusion that “the identity of some speakers may provide a legally acceptable basis for restricting speech,” something that can’t be squared with the text of the First Amendment – even as interpreted by the Republican majority in that very case.

Stevens also defended President Obama for taking on the Citizens United decision in his State of the Union speech in 2010, right in front of several of the justices. Which may or may not have something to do with why Stevens was at the White House last week to receive the Medal of Freedom. Stevens took the opportunity to again criticize Citizens United.

Another retired justice has also weighed in, perhaps involuntarily. As Jeffrey Toobin reported in the New Yorker two weeks ago, Citizens United started out as relatively modest challenge to a federal campaign finance law. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative fellow travelers on the Court subsequently decided to use the case as an opportunity to rewrite the First Amendment in favor of big corporations. But Justice David Souter, a fiercely independent and revered jurist, objected to this tactic. According to Toobin, Souter, scheduled to retire in June, 2009, “wrote a dissent that aired some of the Court’s dirty laundry. By definition, dissents challenge the legal conclusions of the majority, but Souter accused the Chief Justice of violating the Court’s own procedures to engineer the result he wanted.” Toobin describes Souter’s draft dissent as “an extraordinary, bridge-burning farewell to the Court.”

To avoid a published dissent that would have profoundly questioned the integrity of his Court, Chief Justice Roberts set the case for re-argument on June 29, 2009.  This highly unusual move kicked the decision over until the next court term. Toobin says that Roberts did this knowing that Souter would be gone by then.

The source for this explosive reporting could be Justice Stevens... or it could be retired Justice Souter himself.

Souter has donated his papers – including presumably his draft dissent in Citizens United – to the New Hampshire Historical Society. Unfortunately, he has barred any access to them for fifty years.

We can’t wait that long. It’s hard to estimate how much damage to American politics will be done between now and 2056. A nation dominated by corporations and mega-wealthy CEOs for the next half-century will look a lot worse than even the corrupt system in effect today.

And the erosion of trust in the integrity of the Supreme Court is something all Americans – not merely we lawyers devoted to justice – should be alarmed about. The judicial branch used to be the one branch of government where the average person could take on City Hall or a giant corporation and expect to be treated equally, free of political influences. Lose that option, and what’s left for the 99%?

Retired justices typically refrain from criticizing their former colleagues. A sense of decorum, and the sanctity of the judicial process, mandates a quiet retirement for most departed members of the Supreme Court. But the integrity of the institution itself is now in question. The rule of law is being supplanted by the political preferences of the appointees on the Court. It won’t be long before the monstrous swelling of money in politics spread by Citizens United directly infects the composition of the high court itself. Those who care about the independence of the judicial branch should do everything in their power to save the Supreme Court. This includes justices who have left the Court.

Like everything else in our democracy, exposure is the first step toward healing. Americans deserve to know what is going on behind those closed bronze doors, above which reads the promise, “Equal Justice Under Law.”

Justice Souter should permit the immediate release of his original draft dissent in Citizens United.

Citizens United / Harvey Column - 06/06/2012

Obama to Corporate Persons: And This is How You Thank Me?

Poor President Obama. Confronted with an economic catastrophe when he took office, he made a decision – well documented here and here, for example – to save the financial industry from its own misdeeds, foregoing the opportunity to obtain from the Wall Street CEOs any kind of quid pro quo for beleaguered taxpayers and homeowners. And what does he get in return?

Wall Street contributions to the President’s re-election campaign are down 68%, reports the New York Times.

There’s also been a drop in financial support from some of those who were all-in to elect him in 2008.  Some big-name progressive donors, dismayed by the President’s inability to hold the line on everything from foreclosures to a public health care option (which likely would have survived the Supreme Court’s widely expected invalidation of the health care reform law), are sitting this one out – at least for the moment.

Unfortunately, the worst is yet to come for the President, courtesy of the same Supreme Court. Freed from campaign spending restrictions by the court’s ruling in Citizens United, the highly-skilled right wing corporate apparatus is aiming to raise $500 million in “super PAC” money to beat Obama. Pro-Romney super PACs have already out-raised those supporting the President by a factor of eight.

This comes as no surprise to those familiar with the way big business behaves in public.

If corporations are people, as the Republican majority on the Supreme Court says, then the defining trait of the modern corporate personality is ingratitude. When all the federal bailout programs are totaled up (including indirect assistance like being able to borrow taxpayer money at super-low interest rates), Wall Street and many other firms got somewhere around $14 trillion in financial aid from Washington.

Had that money been put in the hands of the American people, it could have paid off every mortgage, credit card and car loan in the United States.

Like President Obama, we are still waiting for our thank you note from corporate America.

Instead, we get surging credit card interest rates, skyrocketing gas prices, outrageous health insurance premium increases and, adding insult to those injuries, the imposition of undisclosed inflated fees by cell phone, airline and other companies for the dishonest purpose of charging hapless consumers more than the advertised price.

Hence the need for parental supervision of corporate persons, also known as "regulation."

Corporate money had already eroded the democratic process under the patchwork of campaign finance laws that pre-dated Citizens United. Our report, “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America” (PDF) gets right to the bottom line. Between 1998 and 2008, Wall Street invested $5 billion in Washington, a combination of money for lobbying and campaign contributions that won deregulation and other policy decisions that enabled the Money Industry to do as it pleased. The ensuing orgy of unbridled speculation came to a halt in 2008 when the big banks threatened to shut down the system unless they got trillions of dollars in loans, tax breaks and other taxpayer bailouts.

But by deregulating corporate money in Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court has empowered a crime wave of corporate influence peddling that will dwarf anything this country has ever seen.

Take, for example, Sacramento – California's integrity-free zone.

$ A half-decade-long battle to force health insurance companies to open their books and prove they need rate increases was crushed by industry lobbyists, forcing angry consumers to mount a ballot measure of their own.

$ A package of bills backed by the state’s Attorney General to prevent banks from abusing the home foreclosure process – dubbed the “Homeowners Bill of Rights” – has been blocked by the banking industry, which spent over $70 million on lobbyists and lawmakers in California between 2007 and 2011.

$ A bill that will deregulate telephone service, sponsored by the state’s two biggest phone companies, AT&T and Verizon, is sailing through the state legislature, much as electricity deregulation did in 1998 – to disastrous consequences for California taxpayers.

Once upon a time, average citizens might have had a voice in these policy debates.  Now that corporate America is locked and loaded, we don't stand a chance.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / President Barack Obama / Supreme Court - 04/23/2012

Why the Supreme Court Wants to Kill Universal Health Care

Name the most popular federal program of all time, and you’ll understand why the Republican Supreme Court wants to kill health care reform before it gets going in 2014.

It’s Social Security, of course. Part of FDR’s New Deal, Congress enacted it in 1935 to provide insurance against the vicissitudes of old age, poverty and unemployment, all of which were made more horrific by the Great Depression.

Social Security retirement benefits are based on an individual mandate, just like the new health care law is. Workers and employers are required to pay taxes into the system now, to cover them later. You can’t have a solvent health or retirement insurance program if participation is voluntary, because no one will contribute until they need the benefits – and then they can’t pay for them, as I’ve noted. Social Security, like the health care law, is a universal system - everyone has to be part of it – both getting the benefits and paying for its cost.

Due to a limited grasp of their own history, most Americans don’t realize how similar today's campaign against universal health care is to the one waged against Social Security.

Republican lawmakers bitterly opposed (PDF) FDR’s measure – and still do, though these days they cloak their hostility behind the hysterical and unfounded argument that Social Security is about to go bankrupt. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan claimed in 2004 that retirement benefits had to be cut and the system “privatized” or the nation would face an economic disaster (it did four years later, thanks not to Social Security but to Greenspan’s policies).  The Bush Administration concocted a plan to turn over Social Security proceeds to Wall Street, which it claimed would do a better job of investing people’s retirement savings.  Had it succeeded, most of that money would have been lost in the financial crash of 2008.

But the conservatives’ attempts to demolish Social Security have consistently failed. Why? Because Social Security works. Americans support it by huge margins – even Republicans.

Hence the vehemence of the attack on the health care law now. The anti-government forces realize that once Americans begin to receive the benefits of universal health care – no denials for pre-existing conditions, no medical underwriting, no caps on benefits – they won’t want to give them up.

That’s not all.  Under the law passed by Congress, the insurance industry stands to gain the most from the mandate that all Americans buy health insurance. But the experts understand that the program will end up being too expensive – in most states, private insurance companies are going to be able to raise their rates at will.  If this doesn’t kill universal care, it will eventually lead to a single public system just like Social Security.

Last week’s spectacle at the Supreme Court – three days of “hearings,” with some lawyers appointed by the Court itself to argue positions no party had taken – looked more like a political ambush by a legislative body than the supposedly chaste pursuit of constitutional principles.  It’s important to remember that an unelected majority of the U.S. Supreme Court almost nipped Social Security in the bud 75 years ago. Pro-industry conservatives on the Court consistently rejected FDR’s proposals to provide Americans relief from the New Deal, as I explained recently.  The Social Security law was considered in danger by FDR’s advisors. Criticism of the Supreme Court became widespread, and FDR began to prepare a plan to add more justices to the nine serving on the high court. Unwilling to provoke a constitutional confrontation that would sully the independence of the judicial branch, the Supreme Court backed down, and upheld the law.

It’s difficult to discern any similar hesitation by the current majority of the Supreme Court, with five of its nine members increasingly unabashed ideologues willing to rewrite the Constitution. Think about the Court’s decision to interfere with the Florida vote count and award the 2000 election to George Bush. Consider its 2011 decision in Concepcion v. AT&T, where five Republican appointees determined that “arbitration clauses” inserted in the fine print of virtually every contract between a giant corporation and consumers can rob people of their right to their day in court.  And then there’s the infamous 2010 Citizens United case, in which the five ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of free speech, protected by the First Amendment. In one fell swoop, the Court disenfranchised the vast majority of Americans who cannot hire their own lobbyist or fund the election of a friendly politician.

On the other hand, yesterday President Obama sent the politicians on the high court a powerfully worded message. Briefly channeling FDR, he said: “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Much is at stake here – more than health care reform itself. Public confidence in government is at record lows. As the financial crash of 2008 confirmed, money has corrupted the electoral process; the wealthy and powerful dictate public policy. The judiciary used to be the only branch of government in which a citizen could take on any person or corporation and be accorded equal stature. When Americans loses their confidence in the integrity of the courts, what is left?

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 04/03/2012

The Health Care Games

Like the Hunger Games, in which leaders of the 1% connive to rig a contest so that a charismatic representative of the 99% is defeated, there’s lots of intrigue behind the US Supreme Court hearings on the federal health care law that begin today.

The ostensible issue before the high court is whether the universal health care system established by Congress in 2010 is constitutional. Like the systems in most other developed nations, that law requires all Americans to be covered – whether through their employer or by purchasing it directly. Now this is just plain arithmetic: you can’t have a solvent universal care program if participation is voluntary, because the young and healthy won’t bother to pitch in until they get sick, leaving the older and less healthy to cover most of the cost. Universal means everyone has to be part of it – both getting the medical benefits and paying for its cost.  Today, taxpayers end up bailing out people who don’t buy insurance and then get sick or in an accident.

But the corporate funded US Chamber of Commerce and other right wing entities, plus anti-government foes (including most of the Republicans candidates who want to run the government), argue it was unconstitutional for Congress to order everyone to pay for health insurance. My problem with that part of the law – known as the "individual mandate" – is that you have to buy the insurance from private insurance companies, and there is no limit on what they can charge you. That’s gotta be fixed, and a campaign is underway to do that in California. As everyone knows, however, Obama lifted his health care proposal from the law that Mitt Romney, then Governor of Massachusetts, enacted there in 2006. So its obvious that a big part of why the corporate Republican establishment opposes the law is that it was backed by a Democrat – Obama – and they don’t want him or any other elected Democrat to be able to claim any political victories.

There’s much more to the Supreme Court case than crass party politics, in any case. Many on the corporate right are hoping the US Supreme Court will issue a sweeping decision like they did in Citizens United, this time ratcheting back Congress’s regulatory authority across the board and therefore bolstering the power of big corporations – just as Citizens United did, in the guise of granting corporations a new right to corrupt elections under the First Amendment.

A decision limiting Congress’s power to regulate pollution would be a huge win for chemical manufacturers; drug and tobacco companies want to escape the Food and Drug Administration’s safety requirements; Wall Street wants taxpayer bailouts with no strings attached.  As I wrote a few weeks ago, the powerful elites in this nation think that the health care case is the Supreme Court’s best opportunity in decades to roll back constitutional rights to the deregulated era of excess that led to the First Great Depression eighty years ago. This will be done in the name of protecting Americans against the intrusion of government in their lives.

In the Hunger Games, the hundred thousand wealthiest people in “Panem” gather in their Capitol to watch as twenty-four randomly selected citizens fight each other to death. This is a yearly penance, we are told, imposed by the wealthy in response to an earlier, unsuccessful revolt by the 99%. The Games provide an excuse for a non-stop party for the powerful – like Mardi Gras only with unimaginable excess.  The citizens – known as “Tributes” – come two each from all twelve “Districts” in the country. Those Districts looked a lot like many parts of the United States. People trudge to poor-paying jobs and live in flimsy structures one step up from homelessness. They shop at flea markets where barter is common. They catch their own food. They help each other out because the Capitol has long since abandoned them.

There are other eerie similarities and ironies. In the Hunger Games, the entire game area is wired with cameras and the contest is continuously broadcast to the nation on enormous screens. This quickly turns to the disadvantage of the 1% in the Capitol, because the 99% become inspired by watching the heroine’s courage and humanity and start to rebel anew.  This is a lesson our Supreme Court has already learned: you can forget about seeing any of its hearings on the health care law on a screen of any size. Watching the Justices and corporate lawyers rework the Constitution into a weapon of the mighty might anger some Americans. So the Supreme Court has banned any video… but says it will release audio at the end of each day’s hearing.

It’s clear from the movie that the elites have powerful medicines that can instantly eliminate infections and heal wounds, but residents of the Districts have never seen that kind of health care. I guess the Panem Chamber of Commerce would argue that these citizens are fortunate to be “free from government interference in their lives.”

Citizens United / Congress / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 03/25/2012

Citizens United Was Not the First (And May Not Be the Last)

Citizens United is hardly the first time that five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have granted corporations special rights under the Constitution. In fact, you can chart the twists and turns in the politics of our country by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution’s protection of big business.

During the First Gilded Age, when utility and railroad companies accreted enormous political power, the nation’s high court routinely blocked progressive reforms on the ground that they interfered with “freedom of contract.” The era is known by its most controversial decision, Lochner vs. New York, in 1905. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law that barred bakers from being forced to work more than ten hours a day.  The Court relied on a creative interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which commands “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

Just as Citizens United equates money with freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the five to four majority of the Supreme Court in Lochner equated “liberty” with the “right” of a company to impose onerous and often dangerous working conditions on men, women and children. This judicial policy of deregulation combined with speculation and greed to produce the Great Depression. But President Roosevelt’s efforts to rescue the nation from the financial abysss were blocked by the Supreme Court, until Roosevelt provoked a constitutional crisis by proposing to add additional justices to the Supreme Court (one for every justice over seventy years old!) to create a majority that would support his legislation. In effect, FDR chose to fight politics on the high court with more politics. Having impaired the Court’s integrity and independence, the pro-big business Justices backed down, permitting New Deal legislation to take effect. Twenty years later, the Supreme Court acknowledged that, “the day is gone when this court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.”

Though the Supreme Court ultimately stopped second-guessing the policies enacted by the Legislative Branch under the guise of interpreting the Constitution, its decision in Citizens United reflects an increasingly politicized Supreme Court. And what goes around, comes around. Even as Citizens United has ignited a grassroots rebellion and calls for a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court's damage to our democracy, scholars and pundits on the corporate-funded right are promoting the resurrection of Lochner.  The legal attack on the 2010 federal health care reform can be seen as one manifestation of a revived challenge to the power of government to regulate industry.  We’ll see how this plays out with the current majority of the Supreme Court when they begin to hear arguments against universal health care later this month.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 03/12/2012

Capital Punishment by Corporate Proxy

There are two kinds of death penalty in this country. One of them I bet you’ve never really thought about.

First there’s the death penalty imposed by the state for particularly heinous crimes. This one’s been churning for decades – we all know about it, and many of us have strong feelings about it. In 1978, for example, California voters passed an initiative authorizing capital punishment for an expanded list of crimes. A few days ago, a coalition of organizations announced they had collected enough signatures to put a measure on the November ballot that would ban the death penalty in California.  Make no mistake: this is one of those social issues that inspire passions of biblical proportions. Whichever way voters go on this, it’ll be an intense, high visibility campaign... over the fate of 719 people on California's Death Row. In 2011, California executed two people; three in 2010.

Then there’s the death penalty almost nobody ever mentions, but claims many more victims – all of them innocent.

I’m talking about the one carried out on a daily basis by corporations that put profits over people’s lives. Consider the death toll that results when insurance companies refuse to sell a health insurance policy at a reasonable price. A study by Harvard researchers concludes that nearly 45,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance and go without the care they need. About 5,300 of those are in California – more than the number of homicides and suicides in the state combined.

Deaths due to malpractice by medical personnel in hospitals alone are estimated at 195,000 annually.

Water, air and soil pollution is reported to be responsible for forty percent of all deaths worldwide.

Most of the corporate policies reflected in these statistics on fatalities are based on a simple financial calculus of profit v. loss. The prototypical example is the decision by Ford executives in the 1970s to manufacture a car with a known fatal defect: a gas tank that could explode in the event of a moderate car accident. The company’s engineers were aware of the flaw, but the cost of the repair – $11 per vehicle – was deemed too expensive. Ford decided it’d be cheaper to pay the medical and court costs of the victims and their next of kin. You can read Ford’s cost/benefit analysis here.

Who knows how many Americans have died an early death after losing their jobs, their homes and their life savings in the financial collapse engineered by Wall Street speculators four years ago?

Why isn't there more discussion of this form of capital punishment? As I explained in a book on medical malpractice years ago, mayhem perpetrated behind closed doors in the suites isn’t as accessible, nor as easily translated into graphic videos and television news stories, as is crime in the streets.

“Corporations are people,” Mitt Romney candidly explained to an angry American last year. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United indisputably granted these inanimate creatures the freedom of speech that once belonged to humans only. Abetted by government incompetence or deliberate inaction, some corporations have gained even greater power: the power to make life or death decisions for many Americans.

I don’t mean to diminish the importance of the debate over the death penalty here in California; the point made by the supporters of the new initiative to ban capital punishment is that a relatively small number of prisoners are costing everyone else a ridiculous amount of money. But we citizens ought to pay at least the same amount of attention to the de facto death penalty that corporate greed can impose.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 03/05/2012

The Supreme Court Shot the Sheriff

"Corporations are people." Two years ago, that's what five justices of the United States Supreme Court gaveled into our Constitution, ruling in the now-infamous Citizens United case that spending money is a form of "freedom of speech" and that when corporations put up money to elect people, they are just exercising their First Amendment rights.

Two months ago, the Montana Supreme Court said wait a minute. It upheld a state law, enacted by Montana voters through the initiative process in 1912, that bars corporations from trying to influence elections. The justices of the Montana Supreme Court argued that the Montana law is different than the federal law that the US Supreme Court threw out, relying on what they described as an especially disturbing history of corporate corruption in Montana government.

When it comes to constitutional law, you can't get closer to the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral than this, as I recently explained.

That's a better analogy than you think.

The campaign finance laws, designed over decades to slow down the accretion of political power by special interests, were like a lazy sheriff in a western gold rush town - barely able to keep up with the legal and illegal maneuverings of outlaw corporateers, while average citizens became increasingly like bystanders in their own democracy.

Then the Supreme Court rode into town and shot the sheriff.

Now we are back to the Wild West, with corporate gunslingers targeting anyone - officials and civilians – who are in the way of their profits and prerogatives. Corporate money, often disguised and hidden behind a fortress of deception, has charged through the Republican presidential primaries, not to mention an untold number of state elections throughout the country. The full fury of this greed-driven onslaught will become apparent in the fall, as Wall Street and the .01 percenters weigh in not just to defeat President Obama (who has not cooperated enough) but any number of other candidates on ballots nationwide, not to mention initiatives put on the ballot by real, live citizens detouring corrupt legislators by taking matters into their own hands.

You can already sense defeat among government officials trying to figure out what defenses, if any, are left against the corporate hordes - the CEOs in their sky-high boardrooms quietly counting dollars and deciding which politicians have earned their financial support (or can be bought); the lobbyists with unlimited expense accounts to wine, dine and drive the quid pro quo; the vast underground of consulting firms and PR flacks that follow corporate orders.

No one could have imagined that Montana, with a population barely larger than a big city, would rise to challenge the United States Supreme Court. The Montana court ruling is an inspiring attempt to evade the deathly embrace of Citizens United and, at the same time, inescapably a courageous challenge to the ideologues now re-writing the nation's laws. It can be found here (PDF).

"Western Tradition Partnership" – the shadowy entity that was caught violating Montana's anti-corrupt practices act – immediately challenged the Montana decision, and last Friday, United States Supreme Court Justice William Kennedy (chief author of the Citizens United decision) issued an order blocking the Montana court ruling from taking effect until the court decides what to do with the appeal.

At least two of the Supreme Court justices who disagreed with their colleagues in Citizens United are hoping the Court will reconsider that ruling. In Friday's order, Justices Ginsberg and Breyer stated:

Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___ (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” .... [The appeal] 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.

Observers of the Court think that's a lost cause. Renowned constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky believes that the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the Montana Supreme Court by the same five to four majority in Citizens United. Still, Citizens United's impact on America's democracy has already been catastrophic, and support for proposals like ours to amend the Constitution has spread across the United States and transcends partisan labels. At the same time, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito are under fire for their close ties to conservative pro-business organizations, further undermining confidence in the impartiality of the nation's highest court. I would not underestimate the power of public opinion to affect the outcome of this showdown – if not now, then in the not too distant future of our country.

 

 

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 02/21/2012

There Oughta Be A Law…. But There Won’t Be Unless We Change the Constitution

Are you one of those people who are constantly saying “there oughta be a law”? I am - which is probably why I ended up a consumer advocate.

Some pretty lofty assumptions about democracy are built into that quaint phrase, if you think about it. For one, it assumes that law is a good way to resolve disputes (as compared, say, to fists or guns). Also, that everybody will obey the law. Perhaps most obvious, when someone says, “there oughta be a law,” they’re asserting our right as Americans to make things better for ourselves by getting the legislative branch to address an issue of public importance.

Indeed, the "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is built into the First Amendment - the same amendment that five members of the United States Supreme Court pretty much erased from the Constitution in the Citizens United case two years ago.

By now, everyone understands that by giving corporations the same First Amendment rights as humans, and then ruling that spending money to influence elections is a form of “free speech,” the Supreme Court in Citizens United unleashed a tsunami of corporate money that will drown out the voices of 99% percent of Americans in favor of the 1% who have the wealth to determine who wins elections. “Free” speech can’t compete with hundreds of millions of dollars of paid propaganda.

What’s not been much discussed is how the Supreme Court decision actually conflicts with the rest of the First Amendment: it has negated our right to petition government for a redress of grievances.

Consider another Supreme Court-imposed debacle: in 2011, the high court ruled that consumers who sue big companies in class actions can be thrown out of court and forced to go into “arbitration” – a system in which the company hires private “judges” to determine whether the company broke the law. The Federal Arbitration Act specifically says that arbitration doesn’t apply if the arbitration clause violates a state’s consumer protection law. But the Supreme Court refused to recognize that exception. The case is Concepcion v AT&T Mobility. In that lawsuit, consumers challenged AT&T for adding extra charges to the purchase of a cell phone that the company had advertised as “free.” The decision – another enormous victory for big corporations – strips American consumers of their right to hold a company accountable for rip-offs big or small.

Unlike the Court’s ruling in Citizens United, which interpreted the US Constitution, Congress could easily amend the Federal Arbitration Act to reverse the Concepcion decision. But will it? Forget about the House of Representatives: it’s controlled by corporate Republicans who are owned by the cell phone companies. (The House was close to passing a bill that would have allowed  telemarketers and debt collectors to call consumers’ cell phones with recorded messages. A huge public outcry delayed the legislation.)

But in the Democrat controlled US Senate, a bill to override the Supreme Court’s arbitration ruling has only fifteen cosponsors.

In California, we are lucky to have the ballot initiative, which allows us to take matters into our own hands when state legislators are too beholden to special interests to deal with important issues. Using the initiative process, California voters passed Proposition 103 to restrain price gouging by auto, home and business insurance companies. My colleagues at Consumer Watchdog are now proposing an initiative to put health insurance premiums under Proposition 103’s controls. But even the people’s initiative process has been corrupted by corporate money. And attempts to ban corporate interference in ballot initiative campaigns ran smack into, once again, a decision by the United States Supreme Court.

Indeed, you don’t have to be an astute observer of politics to know that corporate money has long corrupted politics. Our report, “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America” (PDF), published in March 2009, got right to the bottom line in its title. Between 1998 and 2008, Wall Street invested $5 billion in Washington, a combination of money for lobbying and campaign contributions that won deregulation and other policy decisions that enabled the financial industry to do as it pleased. The ensuing orgy of unbridled speculation came to a halt in 2008 when the financial industry threatened to shut down the system unless they got trillions of dollars in loans, tax breaks and other taxpayer bailouts.

Laws regulating corporate spending in elections and lobbying were intended to limit the damage to democracy. Some, including me, would argue that they didn’t work anyhow. But Citizens United has eliminated any chance of righting the imbalance of political power between corporations and human beings short of changing the United States Constitution itself. We’re proposing exactly that: a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that reads “The protections of the First Amendment that apply to the spending of money on lobbying and elections, whether by contributions, expenditures or otherwise, shall extend only to human beings.” Join us right now.

Citizens United / Harvey Column - 02/06/2012

Is There a Secret White House Memo on Corporate Control of our Country?

An internal White House memo in 2010, just before the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision in Citizens United, suggested President Obama address the influence of money in politics. Other items crowded his agenda instead, but this election year President Obama would be wise to take up the citizen call for a 28th Constitutional Amendment to end the corruption caused by the Court’s corporate personhood decision.

First, some important background on the 2010 memo. It used to be that a history of a presidential administration would await the president’s departure, but in recent years mid-term profiles have become the norm. Bob Woodward chronicled the Bush White House with four books, and Ron Suskind’s “Confidence Men,” published last year, captured President Obama’s errors in strategy and communications. Both authors had access to sources close to the top of the White House. But this week’s New Yorker takes the genre to a new level. Ryan Lizza’s “The Obama Memos” is a fascinating analysis of the Obama presidency that relies greatly on White House memos that Lizza somehow obtained.  One of them, the transition team’s memo to the president-elect in 2008 on the economy, is available in its entirety for download on the New Yorker site.

It was another memo, excerpted in a sidebar, that really got my attention. It was from the President’s political advisers, in late December 2009 according to Lizza, and listed “ideas on how on how try and recapture some of the anti-Washington spirit of his 2008 campaign” in the President’s 2010 State of the Union address. One of the suggestions in the memo anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case.

Campaign Finance reform: By the time of the SOTU [State of the Union], the Citizens United case will have been handed down and at the time of the decision will likely make an announcement on our response/plans. We could use the SOTU opportunity to push the ball forward on whatever proposal we put forward, calling on Congress to act by a ‘date certain’ or further fleshing out our proposals.

The Court handed down its decision on January 21, just a week before the State of the Union speech. Of course, no one expected the decision to cement into American Constitutional law the proposition that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as human beings and that spending money to influence elections is a form of free speech. So when the advisers referred to the White House's “response/plans,” it was not clear what kind of decision they were expecting, or what they thought they could do about it.

We now know that the only thing that can be done about Citizens United is for the American people to join together to overrule it, by passing the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, such as the one we have proposed.

Meanwhile, the President had something to say about corporate money in politics at the end of his State of the Union speech on January 27, 2010, and it stirred quite a controversy. He began by noting that a byproduct of the 2008 financial collapse was the public’s loss of confidence in government of, by and for the people:

We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.

 Then, with members of the Supreme Court seated right in front of him, he slammed the Court’s ruling in Citizens United:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

It was a powerful moment, to be sure, though hardly the assault on the Court that it was subsequently described as, at least in some quarters.

What happened next created the evening’s drama. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who had voted in favor of the Court’s ruling, took it upon himself to provide some instant analysis. Cameras caught Alito angrily mouthing the words “not true” in response to Obama’s critique. The New York Times recalled the moment recently.

Whatever the President or anyone else thought that night about the week-old decision, it has since opened the floodgates of corporate money while individual Americans – I’m referring to the human beings who cast ballots, not so-called "corporate citizens" – have become bystanders. Decades-old laws limiting the influence of big money in politics have fallen, with few exceptions – one of which I wrote about last week.

It’ll likely be a few years before we get to read the memos that his political team is forwarding President Obama this year. But focus on Citizens United and the power of corporations to determine the outcome of supposedly “free” elections in what is proudly hailed as the world’s greatest democracy is certainly consistent with the themes of government accountability and the ninety nine percent vs. the one percent that are dominating public discourse and even the debates between the pro-corporate Republican presidential candidates. Obama would find a welcoming, bipartisan audience for the 28th Amendment. Let’s see how far he’s prepared to go.

 

Citizens United / D.C. Disconnect / Harvey Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Supreme Court - 01/30/2012

Court vs. Court

I’ve been a lawyer for thirty-two years, and I’ve never read a judicial decision like the one that the Montana Supreme Court issued last December 30.

While every court in this country – from the lowest state court to the federal tribunals – sees its job as obeying the dictates of the United States Supreme Court, the Montana Supreme Court chose to obey the U.S. Constitution instead.

The bottom line: the Montana court refused to comply with the US Supreme Court’s infamous 2010 decision in Citizens United, which struck down legal limits on how much corporations could spend on electing politicians or passing ballot measures. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to intervene and influence our democracy with cash. Spending money is a form of free speech, said five of the nine justices. And by that one vote majority, the United States Supreme Court made corporations more powerful than government, more powerful than human beings. The second anniversary of the Citizens United ruling sparked a day of national protest, as my colleague Marty Berg reports.

Like many states, Montana had strong campaign spending laws, including disclosure of campaign contributors and one that prohibits corporations from giving money directly to candidates for public office out of the company treasury. Instead, corporations that want to get involved in elections are required to set up a special fund that can receive donations from individual corporate employees or shareholders and use that money for gifts to politicians or political causes.

As the Montana opinion explains, a Colorado-based organization known as “Western Tradition Partnership” sued to invalidate Montana’s corporate campaign controls, saying they were unconstitutional under Citizens United. Now known as “American Tradition Partnership,” the organization’s supporters and funding are murky, but it’s views are clear: it is extremely anti-environment. The Montana Supreme Court described its purpose as “to act as a conduit of funds for persons and entities including corporations who want to spend money anonymously to influence Montana elections. WTP seeks to make unlimited expenditures in Montana elections from these anonymous funding sources. WTP’s operation is premised on the fact, or at least the assumption, that its independent expenditures have a determinative influence on the outcome of elections in Montana.”

Lots of states have dealt with Citizens United by repealing or rewriting their campaign spending laws. Not Montana.

The Montana Supreme Court decision begins by discussing how in the late 1800s, big mining interests used money to back or bribe elected officials in Montana to take control of state government. The corruption got so bad that many citizens of the state lost their faith in government. “This naked corporate manipulation of the very government (Governor and Legislature) of the State ultimately resulted in populist reforms that are still part of Montana law,” writes Montana Chief Justice Mike McGrath. Among the reforms: the initiative process, and, in 1912, the limits on corporate spending.

“The question then, is when in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did,” the Chief Justice writes. If the statute has worked to preserve a degree of political and social autonomy is the State required to throw away its protections because the shadowy backers of WTP seek to promote their interests? Does a state have to repeal or invalidate its murder prohibition if the homicide rate declines? We think not.”

While the US Supreme Court justices saw no “compelling interest” in limiting corporate contributions, the Montana Supreme Court had a different view: “Montana has a clear interest in preserving the integrity of its electoral process”;  “it also has an interest in encouraging the full participation of the Montana electorate”; and “a continuing and compelling interest in, and a constitutional right to, an independent, fair and impartial judiciary,” one that is not subject to being bought by corporations who elect friendly judges.

Concluding that “the impact of unlimited corporate donations creates a dominating impact on the political process and inevitably minimizes the impact of individual citizens,” the Montana Supreme Court refused to apply Citizens United and upheld the state’s campaign 100 year old reform law.

But that was only the majority opinion. Wait till you hear what the two dissenting justices had to say:

The first, Justice Beth Baker: “The value of disclosure in preventing corruption cannot be understated.” But, she continues, “I believe it is our unflagging obligation, in keeping with the courts’ duty to safeguard the rule of law, to honor the decisions of our nation’s highest Court.”

Justice James Nelson gets the last word, and it’s a doozy.

He writes:

“I thoroughly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United…. I am deeply frustrated, as are many Americans, with the reach of Citizens United. The First Amendment has now been elevated to a vaunted and isolated position so as to endow corporations with extravagant rights of political speech and, with those rights, the exaggerated power to influence voters and elections….. In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s 'open marketplace' of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian corporatists. Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.”

“It defies reality to suggest that millions of dollars in slick television and Internet ads—put out by entities whose purpose and expertise, in the first place, is to persuade people to buy what’s being sold—carry the same weight as the fliers of citizen candidates and the letters to the editor of John and Mary Public. It is utter nonsense to think that ordinary citizens or candidates can spend enough to place their experience, wisdom, and views before the voters and keep pace with the virtually unlimited spending capability of corporations to place corporate views before the electorate.”

“I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of ‘independent expenditures’ expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors.”

“Citizens United distorts the right to speech beyond recognition. Indeed, I am shocked that the Supreme Court did not balance the right to speech with the government’s compelling interest in preserving the fundamental right to vote in elections.”

“I am compelled to say something about corporate ‘personhood.’ While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in the law… I find the entire concept offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”

Having explained, in the most vivid terms, why Citizens United was decided wrongly, Justice Nelson concludes: “I must return to the central point of this Dissent. Regardless of my disagreement with the views of the Citizens United majority, the fact remains that the Supreme Court has spoken. It has interpreted the protections of the First Amendment vis-à-vis corporate political speech. Agree with its decision or not, Montana’s judiciary and elected officers are bound to accept and enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling….Citizens United is the law of the land, and this Court is duty-bound to follow it.”

Students of the law know that courts are always disagreeing with each other. Like the majority of the Montana Supreme Court, judges seek to “distinguish” the circumstances of one case from the facts in another in order to rule a different way. But rarely do the cases involve issues so fundamentally important to the nation; rarely are the stakes so great and rarely are the differences so stark. My guess is we're going to be seeing more of this gentle judicial civil disobedience as the present US Supreme Court ventures ever farther into the realm of re-writing the Constitution.

All the Montana justices seemed to agree that the United States Supreme Court had made a terrible decision in Citizens United. It’s most vehement critic on the Montana court, certain of that as he was, nevertheless felt bound to obey a higher principle – to obey the law of the land. If only the five justices in Washington had felt the same way.

 

 

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Outrage / Supreme Court - 01/23/2012