The Live Feed

What our Regional Coordinator Andy got for his birthday:

By David Frankel of Trending Hill

The “It Gets Worse” campaign, run by Wolf PAC and The Young Turks news program on Current TV, wants your opinion. To join the campaign, The Young Turks asks you to send in a short video, where you discuss anything related to corporate personhood and how the current system is detrimental to progress and dangerous for the future of America.

By David Frankel

Since 1978, corporations have been pumping money into politics, following a Supreme Court decision that endowed corporations with the same rights as citizens. From that decision, income inequality has increased; the average American wage has stagnated; corporate taxes have decreased considerably; and the top income earners have a higher percentage of the wealth than ever before.  Furthermore, the Citizens United v. FEC decision permitted corporations to spend virtually unlimited money on political campaigns, which brought us Super PACs. This ensures that the politicians friendly with corporations will be elected. Politics are now completely bought and paid for. The candidate with the most money wins about 94 percent of the time.

There is one organization that makes it its goal to end corporate sponsorship of politicians: The Wolf-PAC.

By Josh Sager

Introduction

With the precedent set by the recent Supreme Court Decision Knox v. SEIU, I see the potential for a new line of attack on corporate interests donating money. Instead of simply attempting to attack the right of large aggregations of wealth and power (e.g., corporations and unions) to spend money in elections, citizens can use Knox v. SEIU to attack such donations through the argument that such groups are unconstitutionally compelling donations from the public.

By Josh Sager

Knox V. SEIU

During the 2012 term of the Supreme Court, the court heard and decided upon the case of Knox v. SEIU. This case, and the precedent it sets, involves the rights of public unions to compel donations from their members for the express purpose of political speech.

In 2005, the California Service Employees International Union (SEIU) attempted to increase its members’ dues for a temporary increase in political spending during the upcoming 2006 political cycle; this increase was minor for each person paying union dues, totaling a sum of $6.45 a month, yet some people objected. Several non-union members, who still paid union dues to their support collective bargaining (referred to as “chargeable expenses”), challenged the increase due to their disagreement with the recipient of the political expenditures of the union. These people sued the SEIU to stop their money from supporting political speech which they didn’t agree with, and, in January 2012, the court was heard by the United States Supreme Court.

By Josh Sager

Money in Politics

The modern political era has been party to massive regressions in campaign finance law, as well as corresponding increases in political spending by wealthy groups and individuals.

Over the past 40 years, a series of judicial decisions and precedent interpretations have opened the floodgates, allowing a tsunami of money to overtake the political process. This money, originating from corporations, unions, wealthy individuals and advocacy groups, has sculpted the political landscape into one of gridlock and legalized corruption. 

Arguably, the first step in the journey which led to the current political climate was the 1886 Supreme Court decision Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. This case’s decision was a vital prerequisite for the current political climate because it was the seed from which “corporate personhood” grew. The resolution of a tax dispute between the local government of Santa Clara, CA, and the Southern Pacific railroad led to the including of corporations in the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution.

Join our It Gets Worse campaign by sending us a short video where you talk about anything related to corporate personhood and how this system only serves to make things increasingly worse for Americans:

• How does money in politics affect you or those you know? 
• Why should money be taken out of politics? 
• Why should Citizens United be overturned?

Anything goes!

Here’s how you can help:

Go to: http://upload.theyoungturks.com

1. Try to keep videos under 3 minutes
2. Put "It Gets Worse" in the title along with your name and state [for description]
3. Speak from the heart. Topics could include local stories, personal experiences, important issues that are not being addressed in the media, or anything else you want to highlight.

We need your help to make #ItGetsWorse succeed. Please make a video to help get money out of politics. And don't forget to spread the word!

By Rob Icsezen

On April 15, 1947, Jackie Robinson stepped onto Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, the first American of black African descent to don the uniform of a Major League Baseball team.  While the future Hall of Fame player didn’t help his team much that game – he failed to get a hit – he did that day change the game forever.  Robinson, a sadly necessary American hero, famously broke what is often referred to as the “Color Line” in American baseball.

Today, our democracy has a similar line, a “Money Line”, and this line is in dire need of breaking.

By Ryan G. Shaw

While Citizens United v. FEC has been given the most coverage in the media when it comes to money in politics, there is another case which is perhaps even more egregious and which hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. 

The Supreme Court just summarily reversed American Tradition v. Montana, essentially throwing out all state level campaign finance laws and any legislative attempts to handle Citizens United without even hearing an argument. This confirms that there is no way to reverse Citizens United through the courts or the legislators. The only way is through a constitutional amendment.

The case, billed as Citizens United II, was appealed from the Supreme Court of the State of Montana. The majority in Montana, sharply criticizing Citizens United, upheld state campaign finance regulations. They argued that their history of the corrupting influence of money demonstrated a particular need that undermined the premise of Citizens United and thus their state should be able to make a factual determination about whether that decision applies to their state campaign finance laws or not. The dissenting Justices agreed that Citizens United was wrongly decided but felt that it applied to their state regardless of any distinguishing facts.

The decision today was on Certiori. That is a petition to ask the Court to hear the case. Almost always, a Certiori petition is either granted or refused. James Bopp, the lawyer behind Citizens United and the principal architect behind the plans to use the court to throw out campaign finance law, wrote a brief arguing that the court should issue a summary reversal. Summary reversal is a rare move, usually reserved for basic questions where the lower court made an obvious error. In a summary reversal, the court will agree to hear the case, but overturn the lower court ruling without hearing argument.

In a single paragraph written by an anonymous Justice without debate, the Supreme Court reversed American Tradition and the State of Montana, and every other state in this nation, lost. The majority has not presented so little analysis in a summary reversal with four dissenting Justices since 1968. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented. They, like the entire Montana Court, criticized Citizens United, pointing out that the case of Montana and other recent examples seriously call into question the premise that independent expenditures do not having a corrupting influence or an appearance of a corrupting influence. They stated that since the majority was going to reverse, they would prefer not to hear the case at all.